"If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?"
I hope you know this is a line that is used to ridicule people who do not understand evolution.
It would serve you better to study Irreducible Complexity instead of Evolutionary Theory because it basically disproves Evolutionary Theory.
This is what a simple search on irreducible complexity turns up on Google:
Irreducible complexity (IC) is a
pseudoscientific argument that certain biological systems cannot evolve
by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems
through natural selection.
That's interesting because "pseudoscientific" would be a term that more properly fits a theory written by a man such as Darwin, who wasn't even a scientist.
21 comments
Irreducible complexity means "I don't know how it happened". And the Darwin bit is funny, because you don't believe what scientists say...yet you don't believe what Darwin said because "he wasn't even a scientist". Darwin was a naturalist, in that time and place considered to be a suitable pursuit for a young gentleman. He turned that study into a science by himself.
You're throwing everything you have at evolution, without even making a dent. Give up. You've lost that battle.
4Given: You keep attacking Darwin, working on the assumption that discrediting him will send evolution tumbling down.
That is how religion works. If someone can discredit Christ, Christianity is in serious trouble.
That is not how Science works. Science is demonstrable and observable, and the individuals involved are more or less irrelevant. We use the medical knowledge gathered by nazi scientists who performed horrible experiments, because the source does not render the information untrue. That does not mean we condone these actions, it just means that we understand that the universe doesn't care and won't change based on how the research was done.
If it turns out that Darwin was a bitter man who made up a whole bunch of BS and put it in a book just to be an asshole, that does not render the subsequent evidence and research redundant.
Irreducible Complexity... the idea that if something as complex as the eye exists, it couldn't possibly have started out billions of years ago as a primitive, light-sensing organ which we still see in some species today. Naturally claimed with no proof whatsoever.
"Irreducible Complexity" is bullshit.
"Darwin, who wasn't even a scientist."
So? The Theory of Evolution has enough evidence to stand on its own. And science doesn't care who came up with an idea, only if that idea is a good one.
Irreducible complexity (IC) is a
pseudoscientific argument that certain biological systems cannot evolve
by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems
through natural selection.
So that's what they're calling creationism now...
@Frogflayer
That's why it's not a valid argument - there is nothing that fits.
It's like saying fossil evidence proves nephilim were real - it would, if there was any.
Darwin graduated from Christ's College in Cambridge with a Bachelor of Arts and was recommended for a position aboard the Beagle as a Naturalist by his botany professor.
In the 19th century that more than qualifies as a scientist.
Besides it really doesn't matter. Darwin published his ideas for peer review by other scientists. In science what matters are the facts and the evidence not who came up with the idea.
...and yet, 'Irreducible Complexity' was espoused by someone - Michael Behe - who is a scientist; a Professor of Biochemistry, no less.
Yet, even that didn't help him in Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
@Dr. Razark
"The Theory of Evolution has enough evidence to stand on its own."
So much, that it's accepted as scientific fact by the Church of England.
image
Then you wonder why they welcome with open arms - as well as players - the fact that Westminster Abbey is a Gym for Pokemon Go? They certainly did with "On the Origin of Species".
It's called Evolution . It's why the C-of-E stay relevant in the 21st Century, 4Skin. There's an ironic moral here:
Change or Die .
A person has no authority by themselves, their words and writings however can be verified and if proven true, attached value.
An uneducated, drunk opiate addict and pedophile might in theory scribe some groundbreaking thesis and if this thesis would be proven to be correct, it`s still going to be accepted all the same, without praisng the person behind it.
Their primitive kind has never been able to even grasp this concept.
Irreducible Complexity was ridiculed in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial. It didn't even manage to prove itself, and was very, very far from disproving the strongest scientific theory to date.
Darwin was a naturalist and a geologist, so he was a scientist, twice over.
Pseudoscience doesn't fit any scientific theories.
Theory is the highest form of knowledge, and the closest we can come to "truth", in science. As our knowledge increases all the time, the term "truth" is not applicable in science.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.