Blogger of OH wrote: "Dear Brian - before you try and communicate on blogs perhaps you should look up the word sarcasm. Or wait till your understanding of communication evolves a bit more."
You posted a lengthy comment in which every sentence is perceived to be complete idiocy, by any sane readers. In that circumstance, it is quite impossible to detect 'sarcasm'. Idiocy trumps sarcasm every time. We are quite incapable of discerning whether a particular idiotic assertion of yours is a lie or a misconception... sophistry or stupidity... willful ignorance or ordinary ignorance... etc. Sure, Brian knows what 'sarcasm' is, and is capable of recognizing it and appreciating it... but unfortunately, your 'sarcasm' comes in exactly the same form (covered in the drool of ignorance and the stench of lies and bovine excrement) as everything else that you spew. So... it is invisible to us.
Blogger of OH wrote: "I find it interesting that no one is able to respond to complexity (and/or information) happening by accident."
OK... I'll respond. First of all, you have no idea what 'complexity' IS in this context. You... like every other creotard that I have encountered... think that 'complexity' is just a another, less unwieldy, word for 'complicatedness'. So, basically, your whole argument boils down to "Wow... that's way too complicated for me to comprehend (understand)(imagine)(fathom)(conceive) of how that might have come to be; therefore... God did it. But 'complexity' doesn't have anything to do with that. I'm not going to do all your homework for you... you're about 6 - to - 10 books behind. But I will give you a little hint: In this context...
* 'complicated' is the opposite of 'simple'...
* 'complex' is the opposite of 'independent'.
In other words... you don't know what you're talking about... at all.
DuckPhupof FL5:44PM November 03, 2009
Blogger: "The question is simple but you know it has no answer because complex information does not happen by accident."
Evolution is not an accidental process. You don't understand how the theory works.
"Evolution proposes the “origins” of life."
Wrong. Evolution says nothing at all about the origins of life. It concerns the origins of biological diversity.
A. Noydof WA5:19PM November 03, 2009
DAG and Dimensio you still answer nothing because you have no answer. Vomiting out insults merely proves my point and is typical of your type. The question is simple but you know it has no answer because complex information does not happen by accident.
Dimensio said: “a concept not proposed by the theory of evolution” LOL!!
I will help you, now let’s say it together ORIGINS…… Ok
Evolution proposes the “origins” of life. My simple question is how did the origins of life start when the evidence in the cell points to a creator. Impossible to happen by accident; “extremely complex structures with complex information”.
Bloggerof OH4:57PM November 03, 2009
Dear US News & World Report:
I am shocked and appalled by your unprofessional use of in-content advertising in articles like this one. Double-underscore under "science" points to an advertisement? Are you a respectable journal or some low-level blogger trying to squeeze every penny of advertising revenue out of the words you publish?
When I come to a publication's Web site, I expect quality material presented in a professional manner. Keyword advertising links within content is not only distracting but unprofessional.
Surely Dr. Scott deserves better treatment of her work.
John Aabbott
Johnof AZ4:47PM November 03, 2009
Blogger of OH: "..there is no answer, mind boggling information and structures do not happen by accident regardless of your silly little rantings."
What annoys me about people like you is that I know you don't care about this stuff. If you had a geniune interest in learning about the world or the wonders of this universe you wouldn't say such ignorant things... not just about modern biology, but general topics like what I just quoted from you.
On the other hand, you might just be dumb. Or a child. Who knows, it is the internet after all.
DAGof TX4:12PM November 03, 2009
"I find it interesting that no one is able to respond to complexity (and/or information) happening by accident."
It is unsurprising that you have declared an interest in the fact that no one has provided a response to a concept not proposed by the theory of evolution. This is because creationists are frequently irrational and dishonest; as such, it is expected that you would claim that the lack of validation for your fundamental misrepresentation of evolution constitutes a victory of your position.
Dimensioof KY4:09PM November 03, 2009
For the benefit of all the creationists who will ignore this again:
Evolution predicts common descent. Similarities in the fossil record should show evolutionary progression. Lobe-finned fish fossils found in geological strata approximately 385 million years ago. Early tetrapods found in strata dated around 365 million years ago. Evolution predicts fossil should be found in strata between those layers sharing traits of both lobe-finned fish and early tetrapods. Prediction tested, fossil found (Tiktaalik) prediction upheld. Successful testable prediction made by evolution.
Evolution predicts common descent. DNA discovered. Evolution predicts similarities of DNA between organisms. Examples: Human DNA should be similar to other hominids, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans etc. Cat DNA should be similar to lions, tigers, leopards etc. Dog DNA should be similar to wolves, jackals. Fish DNA should be similar to sharks, however cetaceans like porpoise dolphins and whales (air breathers) should have DNA similar to other mammals. Prediction tested, prediction upheld, successful testable prediction made by evolution.
Evolution predicts common descent. Nested hierarchies observed in the phylogenetic tree, examples:
Homo Sapiens/Homo/Primates/Mammalia/Animalia - Human
Pan troglodyte/Pan/Primates/Mammalia/Animalia - Chimp
Canis Familiaris/Canis/Carnivora/Mammalia/Animalia - Dog
DNA falls into same nested hierarchies as observed in the phylogenetic tree, more evidence for common descent. Prediction tested, prediction upheld, successful testable prediction made by evolution.
Evolution predicts common descent. Retroviruses insert themselves into random points across approximately 1.5 billion bases in the 3 billion base genome. Humans are found to share hundreds of thousands of these retroviral markers, ERV's, with other apes including chimps, gorillas and orangutans. Predictions of the differences of shared ERV's fall in line with evolution. ERV's fall into the exact same previously observed nested hierarchies. Prediction tested, prediction upheld, successful testable prediction made by evolution.
Evolution predicts common descent via natural selection and random mutation resulting in speciation. Humans are born with anywhere from 125 to 175 mutations which their parents do not have. Speciation observed in the wild. Mutation in organisms observed in the lab. New morphological features observed in nature (like cecal valves in Podarcis sicula). Prediction tested, prediction upheld, successful testable prediction made by evolution.
Evolution. Testable, observable, verifiable and capable of making successful predictions.
This hasn't been addressed on the other threads, I doubt it will here. Reminders: evolution is accepted by Christians and is not atheistic. Evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. Evolution is not purely "random chance". Prediction: Creationists ignore and make the same mistakes. Amen.
Nick4:09PM November 03, 2009
Ooh, a personal attack, I'm honoured.
Once again, your inability to understand something does not constitute evidence against it. Also your obvious ignorance of probability theory is quite amusing, as is the little whine about the apparent sarcasm of your previous post (tip from a fellow blogger: sarcasm doesn't carry across well over the internet, and claiming sarcasm for one daft comment in a post full of daft comments doesn't do anything for your credibility).
Complexity arises from chance events all the time. Read up on chaos theory, look at a fractal pattern, or take snowflakes for example. Perhaps you would like some biological examples? Ask and you shall receive:
Origin of complexity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=eurekah&part=A4358
Carroll S B. Chance and necessity: the evolution of morphological complexity and diversity. Nature 2001;409(6823):1102-9.
Complexity from Junk DNA: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211172609.htm
Enjoy
Brian P4:07PM November 03, 2009
To fix the broken link (labeled 'Start here') in the article (in case you are computer illiterate), remove the period at the end of the address line. Alternatively, the link is http://www.springerlink.com/content/whn1654v74t64301/fulltext.pdf
Max Nof AR3:59PM November 03, 2009
"I find it interesting that no one is able to respond to complexity (and/or information) happening by accident."
People aren't responding too it, because it's been so thoroughly trashed in the past evolution is not an "accident" and complex structures form naturally all the time (unless you think every snowflake is hand crafted by pixies)
Do some research in the role natural selection plays in evolution and you will see that evolution isn't exactly random
Reader Comments
Back to blog
DuckPhup of FL 5:44PM November 03, 2009
A. Noyd of WA 5:19PM November 03, 2009
Blogger of OH 4:57PM November 03, 2009
John of AZ 4:47PM November 03, 2009
DAG of TX 4:12PM November 03, 2009
Dimensio of KY 4:09PM November 03, 2009
Nick 4:09PM November 03, 2009
Brian P 4:07PM November 03, 2009
Max N of AR 3:59PM November 03, 2009
Tony of CA 3:53PM November 03, 2009