This article provides an update on the blind-variation and selective-retention theory of creativity (BVSR), which posits that creativity and discovery depend on blind variation and selective retention. Campbell proposed this model of creative cognition, which has been developed by researchers like Perkins and Sternberg. Both Perkins and Sternberg recognize the selectionist theory of knowledge generation as accounting for certain types of learning and human creativity.
The article discusses the ‘blind variation’ phase of the creative process, followed by the’selective retention’ phase. Both creativity and free will vanish as sightedness increases, but their relation to blindness is more complex, yielding a triangular joint distribution. The article also discusses the evolution of epistemology, coined by Campbell in the 1960s.
Both Perkins and Sternberg recognize the selectionist theory of knowledge generation as accounting for certain types of learning and human creativity. The article also discusses the evolution of Darwinism, which attributed adaptations to the selection of spontaneous variations that yielded higher fitness. In the case of secondary Darwinian adaptations, the theory of blindness is incompatible with the selectionist theory of human creativity.
In conclusion, this article provides an update on the blind-variation and selective-retention theory of creativity, extending its historical development and addressing the complex relationship between blindness and creativity.
📹 Expert Destroys Darwin’s Theory in 5 Minutes
How does a simple mouse trap prove Darwin’s theory wrong? Listen to Dr. Michael J. Behe, professor of biochemistry, explain …
What is the theory of creativity thinking?
The 4-Ps theory of creativity, as postulated by Rhodes in 1961, identifies four key aspects of creativity: the creative person, the creative process, the creative product, and the creative press (environment). The theory is employed in a number of fields, including text and data mining, AI training, and analogous technologies. All rights are reserved, and open access content is licensed under Creative Commons terms.
What is the concept of human creativity?
Human creativity involves thinking creatively and generating original and novel ideas. However, artificial intelligence (AI) is limited by the data and patterns it has been trained on, making it less likely to generate groundbreaking ideas. Additionally, ethical considerations are crucial in human creativity, as individuals are responsible for the social, cultural, and environmental impacts of their work. Therefore, while AI can produce innovative content, it is not entirely free from these limitations.
What is the tolerance theory of creativity?
The creative problem is discovered through interaction with the elements that constitute it, an iterative process of wrestling with uncertainty. The ability to be tolerant of this lack of clarity and closure, persevere through it, ignore or accept it, or even enjoy the chase may be a crucial trait in creative individuals. The relationship between emotion and creativity has been a subject of debate, with a focus on positive versus negative affect and the relationship between emotion and the peak state of intense absorption experienced during the creative process, flow.
Both creativity and flow are paradoxical and ambiguous phenomena, with emotional antecedents, subjective experience, and outcomes being crucial. This review explores dimensions of emotion beyond the positive-negative divide, the complexity and dialectics of emotion as potentially mixed and contradictory, and argues that this is related closely to the ambiguity and uncertainty inherent in creativity and flow. It is proposed that certain categories of emotions – self-related, time-related, and epistemic – are especially important emotional groupings in these contexts.
The flexibility in imaginatively construing/reconstruing a given perceptual stimulus may be due to broader general knowledge or more interconnected semantic memory networks. Speculatively, the elevated frequency of experiencing mixed percepts might also be related to a greater tolerance of ambiguity.
What is the cognitive theory of creativity?
Cognitive theories emphasize the creative process and person, with the former focusing on cognitive mechanisms as the basis for creative thought, and the latter considering individual differences in these mechanisms. This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available for purchase from Cambridge Core. A preview is provided, and access to the full version can be obtained through various options, including logging in and purchasing the content if necessary.
What is humanistic theory of creativity?
The humanistic perspective emerged in the mid-20th century as a response to psychoanalytic theory and behaviorism. It emphasizes the development of healthy individuals and their inherent drive towards self-actualization and creativity. Humanism rejects biological determinism and emphasizes human potential and the ability to change. While humanistic work is sometimes criticized for being qualitative, there are quantitative research strains within humanistic psychology, such as happiness, self-concept, meditation, and humanistic psychotherapy outcomes.
Carl Rogers, a pioneering humanistic theorist, developed a personality theory that emphasized the importance of self-actualizing tendencies in shaping human personalities. He believed that humans constantly react to stimuli with their subjective reality, which changes continuously. Rogers’ main ideas about personality revolve around self-concept, which is our thoughts and feelings about ourselves. A positive response to the question “Who am I” can indicate a positive view of the world, while a negative response may indicate dissatisfaction. Rogers further divided the self into two categories: the ideal self and the real self, emphasizing the need for consistency between these two selves.
What is the concept of humanistic theory?
Humanistic psychology is a system of thought that emphasizes human beings as inherently good and their basic needs as vital to human behaviors. It has been an important movement throughout history, from Greek and Latin roots to Renaissance and modern revivals. Good teachers are constantly seeking ways to improve their methods to help students thrive in their classrooms. Different learning theories and techniques help teachers connect with different students based on their learning style and abilities.
Student-centered learning strategies often have great success in helping students learn and grow better. This approach places the student as the authority in the educational setting, ensuring they are in control of their learning to some extent. It is valuable for current and aspiring educators to learn about student-centered education and other humanistic approaches to use in their classrooms, as these approaches can be vital in helping students truly learn and succeed in their education.
Who is the father of creativity theory?
Dr. Paul Torrance, known as the “Father of Creativity”, was an 87-year-old UGA professor who studied brain creativity for nearly 60 years. He created the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) and the Torrance center, which is now used by many countries and schools in the USA. Torrance was a kind man who helped many people, both children and adults. He made a documentary film, Manifesto for Children, in 2000, and a book, Manifesto: A Guide to Developing a Creative Career, which includes his 40-year study on creativity.
What is the theory of tolerance?
The theory of tolerance states that every species can only survive and reproduce within a specific range of environmental conditions. This concept is best illustrated by a bell-shaped curve. Shelford’s law of tolerance, developed by American zoologist Victor Ernest Shelford in 1911, states that an organism’s success is determined by a combination of minimum, maximum, and optimum environmental factors.
Ronald Good further elaborated on this theory. Liebig’s law of the minimum has a limitation as factors act in concert, and a low level of one factor can sometimes be partially compensated for by appropriate levels of other factors.
What are the forms of human creativity?
Neuropsychologist Arne Dietrich, a renowned neuroscientist, has identified four types of creativity: deliberate and cognitive, deliberate and emotional, spontaneous and cognitive, and spontaneous and emotional. Born in Europe, Dietrich studied the human mind and the brain’s complexity, graduating in Neuroscience from the University of Georgia. His most popular works include Introduction to Consciousness and How Creativity Happens in the Brain. Dietrich’s research has led to the development of a comprehensive understanding of creativity.
What are the 4 cognitive stages of creativity?
The creative process, as described by Graham Wallas, consists of four stages: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. These stages help develop creativity to its fullest potential. Almudena, a graphic designer at Genially, shares her creative process for creating templates from scratch, which can be useful for anyone looking to create amazing content. She also shares tips for stunning your audience and leaving them wanting more.
As with all creative work, working in a team is a great advantage. At Genially’s design team, they work collaboratively to help ideas grow and develop, providing motivation and support from the initial idea to the final template. This collaborative approach helps Genially create visually appealing and engaging content that leaves audiences wanting more.
What are the elements of human creativity?
Figure 2 illustrates the three key components of expertise, creative thinking skills, and motivation.
📹 The Theory of Evolution (by Natural Selection) | Cornerstones Education
The Theory of Evolution (by Natural Selection) is one of many learning resources available to primary schools who use our …
For those of you that don’t understand his argument: his idea is called irreducible complexity. The notion is that some complex lifeforms only work when ALL the individual parts are there in the right configuration, and therefore evolution could not have evolved them part by part because unless all the parts are there the lifeform would be useless. In evolutionary theory, lifeforms have to pass through individual stages to get to the end product, but because some of these forms are irreducibly complex, all the individual stages before the end product are useless and hence would not have been replicated or selected for enough times to ever come about. The problems with this argument is really easy to see. Firstly, evolution doesn’t only work in one direction; it doesn’t only “add things”, it can also remove them. So this irreducibly complex machine could have evolved by a more complex and redundant machine (redundant in the sense of being able to lose pieces without losing function) which lost pieces to produce the irreducibly complex machine. Secondly, he says a mouse trap is useless without all the individual parts being there, but that just aint so. It might be useless at catching mice, but I can think of a 1000 uses for a mousetrap missing any combination of the components that have nothing to do with catching mice. Evolution can (and often does) co-opt previous forms evolved for one or more functions for use in some new way. An example is the tongue: it did not evolve for language, it evolved to move food around in the mouth.
His mousetrap analogy is hopelessly flawed. The mousetrap has a function that was decided upon before all its parts were put together. The function of all living things are simply to survive. Most living things found it necessary to develop reproduction to do so. ( not all ) Sexual reproduction allowed for mutations in the gene pool. The ones that made the simple chemicals survive and allowed them to reproduce were kept and the ones that didn’t work. Died. Darwin didn’t attempt to answer how life started. Just how it developed. He didn’t attempt to explain how the mousetrap was designed either.
Intelligence is needed to build a mousetrap because nature can’t do it for us. The wooden platform is manufactured in shop W; the spring, in shop S; the hammer, in shop H, etc. Then a delivery guy from each of these shops takes them to a manufacture where the parts are assembled. A living cell didn’t evolve that way: the DNA didn’t come from region R1; the mitochondria didn’t come from region R2; the cell membrane didn’t come from region R3, etc. Otherwise, nature, by pure magic, would need to know where those regions are, bring these parts to the ‘manufacture’ where assembling is done. The appearance of pre-life (abiogenesis) started in one specific location on earth, where the chemical structures eventually converged. A mousetrap missing one part can’t work, but still exists. A living cell can’t exist without all parts present due to the convergence I mentioned. Likewise, any part of the living cell can’t exist without the cell. So, the living cell is not an assembling of parts, so, no design. Extrapolation to complex life forms, like animals, leads to realize that a live leg, for instance, can’t exist without the body. So, the body evolved as a unit. In nature, what doesn’t work can’t exist. So, everything in nature just works. No intelligence involved! Except in a brain.
Mousetraps aren’t subject to genetic mutation, and don’t survive to pass on their genes, or die without doing so, based on their ability to adapt to environmental pressures. As a matter of fact, mousetraps don’t reproduce at all. You need to start over. You’re basing your position on something not only completely irrelevant, but absurdly silly and childish.
Dr. Behe’s arguments have been long ago and repeatedly been debunked. But he’s not interested, because the validity of his arguments is irrelevant to him. What matters is that he keep repeating them in public so that people who want their fantasies reinforced will keep buying his book. Yes, it’s all about the money. Truth can go to hell.
Let’s accept that a mousetrap is a an appropriate model of cellular mechanics. It’s important to recognize that not all mousetraps are created equal. In cheap mousetraps, where quality control is poor, the holding bar doesn’t seat in the indent of the small metal “trip” very well and you frequently get your fingers snapped trying to set it. That doesn’t need to happen too many times before you decide that the ones with the slightly improved trip indent are worth the extra money, and, naturally, you’ll select those. In fact, that model was eventually improved upon and the small metal trip was replaced with a flat plastic paddle, which is much more selective for snapping mice than fingers, and soon these became the most commonly selected mouse traps. A more recent innovation saw the wire “hammer” (the thing that snaps) replaced with a plastic mandible that sets by pressing down on the back of it. These things pretty much never snap on your fingers (since your fingers are always behind the mandible), and are priced higher than the paddle variants, due to consumers’ increased tendency to select them. This is a reasonably appropriate analogy between Darwinian and mousetrap evolution, though it doesn’t support Behe’s assertion that the comparison somehow reveals flaws in Darwin’s theory
The flaw of the “irreducible complex” argument is that it begins with the assumption of a creator. But to prove irreducible complexity of a system, you cannot assume anything to be true, you must exclusively use facts and evidence. And the Bible does not count as evidence. If you include the Bible as evidence you must also include the Quran and the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, and the Tripitaka and the Mahayana Sutras, and the Tao Te Ching, the Zhuangzi, and the Daozang. Just to name a few. What is your argument that Christianity is the only true religion and that all of these religions are false? These religions still hold that there is a creator.
Are we supposed to take this seriously? This is just a guy looking at a mousetrap saying if life is built like that, it must have been designed. And that’s it. Nothing else. He destroys nothing, he doesn’t make one valid argument, he produces not one piece of evidence, he actually does not even have a point to make. Where was this guy for the last 200 years or so? Biology, paleontology, genetics… none of these tell him anything?
I mean, you are right that one change could be deadly, but the thing is that a lot of mutations are deadly, and to you should be caused by a “designer”. Saying that a lot of mutations are deadly and some are or even a tiny bit are useful is literally the concept of how evolution works. This is just like your example. You’re also talking about abiogenesis, which is way different than evolution. A whole different subject.
It appears to me that this professor wasn’t intelligently designed. I’m not convinced that he has read enough about evolution or understood it. His attempt at debunking Darwin’s theory with a mouse trap is simply pathetic. I was waiting for him to destroy Darwin’s theory…it never happened. I hope his intelligence evolves.
Okay, now show us a better alternative to Darwin’s theory. Oh, and this alternate theory has to be able to withstand scientific peer review. If a majority of biologists (doesn’t have to be unanimous) believe the alternative option is as compelling or more compelling than Darwin, then get ready to collect your Nobel Prize in Science. And if the alternate theory has anything to do with an invisible man in the sky, try again.
If the mousetrap had one of the parts missing then it would remain on the shelf of the store while all the other mousetraps would get bought and used as – mousetraps. If someone was trying to make his own mousetrap he wouldn’t use the non working mousetrap as his model, he’d use a working one, so the non working mousetrap would never get replicated. Oh Lordy, he’s just explained how evolution works 😂
So basically he makes up his version of the utterly debunked “watchmaker argument” and claims that somehow disproves evolution o.0 Literary his argument goes like: 1) the mouse trap is a machine 2) the cell is “basically” a machine 3) the mouse trap could not have been working without all of it’s parts put at the same time 4) therefore the cell could not have evolved one part at a time The issue here is that only the first premise is correct and all the rest is fallacious as it gets. 2 – nope, while you could say it’s a machine, it’s not the same type of a machine as a mouse trap or a car engine. This is equivocation fallacy and what he’s saying is like saying that because water and bleach are both liquid, you could safely drink them both 3 – technically the mouse trap was put together 1 part at the time. The problem here comes from the assumption that the cells have the same purpose as the cells of the ancestor of whom the organism evolved. This is a complete strawman 4 – this conclusion is a false cause fallacy and states because the cell and mousetrap share a common characteristic (are machines that wouldn’t work if they didn’t have 1 of their parts), therefore both had to be “made” as they are. This is like saying that because both the cell and the mousetrap are machines that wouldn’t work if they didn’t have 1 of their parts and the mousetrap is made of wood and metal, than the cell must also be made of wood and metal -.-‘ Not to mention that this doesn’t even support theism, nor the abrahamic god.
If intelligent design is a thing then there should be no fossil record of extinct ancestral species, you’d jump straight to the current ‘designed’ animal and plant kingdoms and say ‘job done’. But wait, we do have fossil records so was the intelligent designer constantly developing designs over millenia until finally satisfied with how things like today? If so then clearly not happy with viruses as constantly tweaking these.
Good! Now that you have “debunked” darwin’s work you can go and try to debunk the modern theory of evolution, I mean, it’s kinda meaningless to go and debunk the words of a man we today know that those weren’t exactly accurate Btw, Judging by the comments, you talked about the start of life, which is not evolution nor Darwin’s think Go and at least have a new argument
From Lehigh University Department position on evolution and “intelligent design” The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
His mousetrap analogy doesn’t work. The mousetrap doesn’t have to start out with the intention of catching mice. It could start out as something else and gradually become a mouse trap. The parts are useful for other things. With evolution the parts can develop and have utility by themselves, then gradually the sum of the parts creates a whole new purpose.
John 3.16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” Jesus Christ loves you. Repent and be saved. Only Jesus Christ saves. God bless you, and the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you and your family..
Evolution isn’t dependent on Darwin. He didn’t come up with the idea of evolution. That species evolve over time to become new species and that species alive today share common ancestors in the past was pretty much an established and observed fact hundreds of years ago. Instead, Darwin came up with a theory to explain how evolution actually works– natural selection operating on the variation inherent in all species. And, in the 160 or so years that Darwin first proposed his theory, additional information regarding genes, DNA and transitional fossils has only supported his original ideas. “Debunking Darwin” to prove Creationism makes as much sense as debunking Copernicus to prove the flat earth theory.
In case everyone doesn’t know, this guy got destroyed in court. Kitzmiller Vs Dover School District. PBS has documentary called Intelligent Design on trial. Michael Behe has tried this mouse trap analogy multiple times and got destroyed by Kenneth Miller. He responded to this mouse trap by using it as a tie clip which is what evolution basically is.
This seems to be a misunderstanding of how evolution works. He said that there is no way for a mouse trap to be put together one small piece at a time, but that doesn’t really relate to how a mouse evolves over time from different forms. Evolution doesn’t claim that a single celled organism one day become mulitcellular, the next sprouted hair, then ears the next, then eyes, and so on and so forth. If he’s talking specifically about the machines in a cell, then that also doesn’t work. We know there are multiple ways for a cell to function that isn’t dependent on one thing. It’s the difference between an artificial system and a natural system. Artificial systems usually break down after one or two parts go missing, but in natural systems, there are usually redundancies, as well as other means of making the system work. Just look at the different kinds of cells. A prokaryotic cell and a eukaryotic cell have some things in common, but the way in which the cells function is quite different, yet they accomplish many of the same tasks. The main flaw in his argument is that he’s treating evolution as though it’s slowly working its way to a final result, as in, it’s trying to end up with the mouse trap. That isn’t true. In evolution, whatever allows the organism to survive best at that moment is what is maintained. Or, better put, whatever is enough to allow that organism to survive is maintained, as all the ones who didn’t have enough died and didn’t reproduce. It isn’t slowly adding parts until you get the full mouse trap.
guys. this is a friendly message to the admins of this website. darwin’s theory is one of the most important theories of all time that humans have ever debated. it has been debated for many many years and it’s not something which you can destroy, debunk or these equal social media silly terms in only 4 minutes by talking about a mouse trap. like this article or any other articles in this category. of course scientists are not obsessed with his theory cos theories can be proved or disproved and in this case, it’s closer to the first one BASED ON THE EVIDENCE SCIENTISTS HAVE GATHERED through all these years. so it wasn’t like someone called darwin woke up one day and said something irrational for himself based on no observations and then some teenagers or drunk people or even uneducated ones decided to support him completely blindly like how jesus, muhammad, moses were supported for thousands of years. no it wasn’t like this. the evolution theory which is also known as a fact in our modern age is the best explanation a scientist has provided to our world and if you really think it is wrong, you need to bring your sufficient evidence for it NOT talking about a mouse trap and how much you believe an intelligent designer has created this universe without bringing up any evidence for your claim. it doesn’t matter how much you wanna repeat it as long as there is no evidence to support your claim i can say that “i can fly for 20 minutes without any equipments”. ok now when i’m asked “how do you prove it?
And yet, nobody has demonstrated an irreducibly complex system in biology. They are all explainable as coming into place gradually from a simple origin. His example of a modern cell being complicated and not something we can create now is pretty meaningless, it is the product of billions of years of evolution.
So you’re saying that whoever invented the mousetrap did it all in one perfect step? Or did they make modifications over several iterations until they got the functioning version we have today? Because THAT would be the equivalent of evolution. In theory, inventors will continue to tinker and may eventually come up with a better mouse trap. Also, evolution happens to a population, not an individual. Yes, if you take the spring off a mousetrap it stops being an effective mousetrap and will no longer be produced but the others will. That is also evolution in that a disadvantageous adaptation is not propagated. Maybe in the far future they incorporate solar powered energy that projects a hologram of cheese. That would be an evolution, wouldn’t it? Or maybe they will never significantly improve on its design and it will remain largely the same for millions of years, the way sharks and turtles have, because they are perfectly adapted to their current environments (or in this case to their function- which is not the same as environment and another reason your comparison is awful). Your argument that evolution can’t be real because if you break a mousetrap it won’t work anymore is myopic. You have created an argument with the goal of proving a predispoition. You are supposed to be an educator. Shame on you for promoting bad thinking.
can we take a minute to appreciate how this genius has found a small wooden contraption with a spring and can disprove evolution and all the branches of science that supports evolution – biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. The only way I would be more convinced he was right would be if he was wearing a white lab coat.
We hear this argument all the time, i.e. the Watch (explained/debunked in “The Watchmaker) or the Human eyeball. Richard Dawkins explains all this when he talks about climbing “mount improbable”. The argument is that if even one part of the eye is not there then the whole thing doesn’t work, so it had to be created all at once. However 1% of an eye is better than no eye. More primitive versions of our eye existed and it evolved to what it is today. Indeed many organisms still have rudimentary eyes. If all this 1% of an eye can do is barely detect differences in light, then that is at least something and will be selected for because it confers a survival advantage. Those that have the survival advantage will be the ones to survive and pass down their genes, thus resulting in a population shift. Gradual improvements happen over long periods of time due to natural selection. The mousetrap example is a poor example because it is misleading. 1% of a mousetrap does nothing, but 1% of organic structures like the eye are important and selected for. There is always variability among any type of organism and certain traits will be selected for based on the environmental pressures/drivers that are there.
One tell-tale characteristic of faith-based beliefs, as opposed to evidence-based beliefs, is that once people have found a bunch of arguments to justify their faith-based belief (which they already held prior to finding those arguments anyway), they just stick to them forever, completely ignoring whether or not a convincing rebuttal has ever been produced. So the arguments you heard 30 years ago will still be exactly the same today, no matter how many times those arguments were shown to be fallacious. Creationism is a prime example of that.
Interestingly, during the Dover vs. Kitzmiller hearings, Behe stated, “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”
well, that’s exactly why Darwinism doesn’t explain the origin of life, that’s why Darwinism never set out to explain the origin of life, it explains how living things evolve, from the point where living things exist., they evolve, and darwin described it very accurately, but apparently this “expert” didn’t learn this basic differentiation in school.
This is what you get when you call yourself a scientist but approach a topic like this from the religiously preconceived notion of the intelligent design that leads you to the fallacy of circular argument, which you then claim to be the fact. There is no insightful proof here; all he is doing is covertly begging the question, and employing the fallacy of weak analogy. This guy has obviously missed his calling in life; he should have become a preacher.
The title of this should be “When stupid people think they’re intelligent” For example when the board gets enlarged or the spring receives a new coil or the hammer gets heavier it evolves into a rat trap. Eventually the board may split and or gain a page and a cross might form on it and it becomes a trap for idiots
Let this be an explicit warning to you that educated, (seemingly) intelligent people who manage to get published can be as far off as ignorant bronze age peasants yet by their demeanor alone manage to convince others. “What convinces is conviction.” -Lyndon B. Johnson Sadly, that’s our natural mode of getting to our beliefs if we don’t make a conscious effort to be better than that (like critical thinking, intellectual honesty, error correction mechanisms and peer review).
I still don’t get how a cell becomes a dolphin or an elephant just from mutations, we see mutations in animals and I don’t see any signs of them developing new organs or new limbs out of nothing, there are no middleman still undergoing transformation parts of any living being, I try to find articles on this but I can’t find any, I think that no one really knows
This expert needs to understand just one small concept, Minimum Viable Product. Evolution is not about developing individual pieces and putting them together. It is about changing a small thing, a small piece at a time. So the better analogy will be for example to experiment with various springs and to see which spring delivers the best result.
Abiogenesis is still in the air but darwins theory of evolution is a proven fact at this point with the science on DNA and fossil evidence to support it. This is the problem with making the comparisons of cells to “machines” or DNA to “code”. It’s a fallacy because he begins with the presupposition that life has some innate purpose which is an assertion not a fact.
Darwin never claimed to know how life originated, and that therefore has nothing to do with evolution or any of Darwin’s theories. Evolution is about the process of mutation and natural selection leading to shifts in phenotypes, favouring those phenotypes more likely to reproduce. This we observe all the time. As for the origin of life, a mouse trap is in many ways more complex than the likely origin of life. All life needs to originate is some kind of material which is self replicating. Likely the formation of a protein. Now we may not know exactly how those proteins formed, but that does not mean they could not form. Still we don’t know how proteins form even within many living organisms, yet clearly it is occurring. An inability to explain does not mean God has to be invoked to explain it. If you showed a computer to someone in the 1800s, they would have no idea or even way of knowing how it worked, yet they would clearly be mistaken to attribute it to some kind of God.
What a shame that you took such a simple object for your explanation, as it could be easily debunked, let’s take a fridge instead of a mousetrap. Doesn’t matter if you take a screw out of the fridge, it does matter if you take the door though. It’s the same for living beings, to a creature maybe it doesn’t matter if it’s born without a finger, maybe it does, if it doesn’t and it reproduces the trait may be passed on. If, on the other hand that animal is born without a stomach, well it’s not gonna do so well.
Another way to debunk evolution is to date the Galápagos Islands. The islands are supposedly only several million years old but there are animals that date to the Jurassic period which cause evolution not to have enough time to happen since the islands would have to be at least 200 million years or more to allow evolution to occur which is not the case.
I don’t normally comment on articles containing such drivel, as I hate to think that I would encourage YT’s algorithm to promote it to further viewers; however, since almost all commenters seem to see through this total lack of understanding of what Darwin posited, I will proceed with my rebuttal. Firstly, I must confrunt the Moeritherium (percursor to the elephant) in the room of the words “EXPERT” and “DESTROYS” being used in the title… tbh, I can’t even be arsed educating people who are illuminated by such a drivel (goes back to re-watch the article).. yeahh no.. I aint even going to save fools from finding truth in this idiot’s uninteligable theory. I simply don’t have the incapacity to understand his point, if he ever had one… he is litterally a contradiction to his own final statement, in that he is far from a purposeful design; unless he is designed to test my faith in humanity.
A Monty Python sketch? Try to make it a bit funnier, then. I mean, you can’t just criticize something (evolution) by painting it as something it isn’t, and then attack its weakness that really isn’t there, that’s called the strawman fallacy, a way to win arguments by misrepresentation. Of course evolution can create advanced machines, its absurd to claim anything else. Today it is used to make AI in all kinds of fields, have you never heard about AlphaZero: a neural algorithm program that only by a few hours of playing versions of itself and removing losing versions (a kind of evolution) became the strongest chess program in the world? This is a machine, and it became successful only by the method of evolution, that is, the parts in it that are randomly picked and leads to more wins are kept in the next generations until the whole machine (the combination of the most successful parts) results, so the more it self-plays (randomly exchanges some parts), the better it becomes. Of course, this evolution is only copying the evolution in living creatures where there is a random re-combination of DNA parts in newer generations.
“Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.” (Herbert Spencer) But Behe’s theory, promulgated by the Discovery Institute, Seattle’s intelligent-design organization, does demand support. Who, exactly, is the designer, and what evidence is there that this designer makes nonrandom mutations? Is the designer an immaterial god, in which case we need to know how this god violates the laws of physics by causing mutations, or is the designer material, like a space alien, in which case we must understand the physical methods whereby aliens change our DNA? And what is an example of a designed mutation, dear Behe? … Yep, he remains silent, as all frauds do when confronted.
Dude, what? 1:22 “has a very small change” so when I destroyed the mousetrap IT’S NOT WORKING ANYMORE, I’m a genius, I destroyed a mousetrap, folks, I disprove Darwin!!! So what would be the same in nature? A reindeer without head is not working? Surprises anyone? But what with a rednose reindeer? SMALL Dude, SMALL change, do you even remember that you emphasized it? Not rip of the head, that’s not a small change cause your trap is so tiny. -_- First a mousetrap is a thing, make a cut in your skin and the mousetrap and you can watch millions of years but the trap won’t heal itself not cause it’s dead, instead it has never lived before. A fundamental difference and I tell you a secret, the newborns, they doesn’t come from the clouds brought by storks created by magic Santa that fulfill all wishes. When a woman and a men, love each other very much… anyway, your mousetrap wouldn’t envolve to produce cheese to catch more mice. Notice something? For example enzyme or other bio machines are chemical, living beings theirselves are some sort of chemical balance too while the trap is static so even the most molecules has more parts and complexity then this mousetrap out of three or four parts and helpless without you reseting it. Changing a molecule change may it effect but it doesn’t become useless, notice that simple errors in one DNA or even a missing arm destroyed your mousetrap but not a living being so there is a fundamental mistake in your comparison. How to simulate mousetrap evolution correct?
Science fans and Theist fans going at it. Theists team scores a goal and Science team going frantic “No no it’s offside!!”, “It’s a foul!!” Nobody’s actually paying attention to the game. Cheer for a team too long and you’ll build enough ego to be in denial until your last breath. Meh 🫠 We got a long way…
Problem is that you already look at the endresult with an assumption it was always meant to be that way. Which is not how evolution works. There is no “endgoal” that needs to be fullfilled and only works once completed. That is simply not it. Nice example. There are many marine organisms with what we would call “half eyes” as in partial eyes of how we know eyes. Even this is beneficial since it can describe a difference between light and dark. Acting as if only the endproduct that you see as the endproduct is beneficial is ludacris and an extremelly subjective view and not even close to disproving the concept of evolution.
Behe’s reasoning (the mouse trap analogy) breaks down when you realize that small changes can result in a perfectly performing protein. There are 64 codons for 20 amino acids. Odds are that one mutation will result in no change. If you consider the analogy of the old bi-planes at the beginning of the 20th century. Many early aviators were able to keep the planes flying, not by using the parts manufactured for the plane, but by using a substitute that differed, but still worked. Dr. Behe is a brilliant chemist, but he falls short of applying his background to evolution.
I’m surprised Behe is still trying to use the irreducible complexity argument, especially the mousetrap comparison, after it was so thoroughly embarrassed in kitzmiller. It wasn’t convincing then and it isn’t convincing now. Parts can have alternate functions before arriving at their current function. If you don’t want to read the transcript of Kitzmiller, search for the Nova Documentary Judgment day
Wow there’s just so much wrong with this mousetrap analogy. Within evolution, different molecules or bodyparts can acquire different, new functions or even serve several functions simultaneously. There is of course also variation within a population regarding things like size and structure of body parts. So obviously, if there are certain environmental conditions which make a certain behaviour (like mouse trapping) attractive, there are individuals better suited for exploiting that opportunity. This can cause directional selection towards certain forms and functions.
He explains species as if they are “made” gradually. This is why he doesn’t understand basic scientific principles like evolution. Species aren’t “made” gradually they improve gradually. Evolution is such a simple concept and still so many people choose not to believe it. Evolution comes from small random mutations. For example if a child has two parents with brown eyes there is still a small chance that the child will be born with blue/green eyes. This is due to random mutations. In the same way when an animal is born with a mutation which gives it a strategic advantage it is more likely to live a full life and to produce offspring with the same mutations. Slowly, over millions of years these mutations change species to adapt to their surroundings. Anyone who thinks that the timeframe in which these animals had to evolve is too short is wrong, the earth must be more than a few thousand years old otherwise we would not have evidence of human civilisation and fossils of ancient species. If you think fossils and ancient human civilisation is not real then you are just ignorant. Even though the bible says the world is 10,000 years old, the bible is an old book written by people who were not as well educated as us modern humans. Please stop trying to prove evolution wrong it is like trying to prove that the earth is flat or that vaccines don’t work, it makes each child slightly dumber and if continued can become dangerous to scientific research.
I’m honestly sad that so many people in the comments are so adamantly against evolution. It may seem far fetched, but in reality it’s a pretty simple and solid concept. Life WILL change under a different environment, or it will die. As well as that, sometimes DNA isn’t made correctly, creating mutations. Combine those two concepts, boom. Evolution.
This is the same argument as “the eye is too complex to evolve” only on a smaller scale. Turns out we have a pretty good idea how the eye evolved along with the cell. The story of the cell is a little harder since we don’t have fossils to see what was in the past, but there is nothing in chemistry to suggest that this couldn’t have happened.
This is a commentary by his own colleagues at LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: “While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.” Sir, your Qualifikation is biochemistry, not biology and not evolutionary biology. Stick to you guns otherwise you risk to look like a fool..
Hola, no me cuadra que haya dicho que somos algo así como “una maquinaria perfecta”, pues tenemos, a nivel molecular, celular y ya fenotípicamente hablando, muchos defectos. Además, se han detectado mutaciones que, de hecho han mejorado las posibilidades de supervivencia de especies; por ejemplo, no recuerdo dónde, habían ratones de cola larga cafés, que vivías en un ambiente en donde se podías camuflar, y habían ratones de cola larga de color más claro que vivían en otra zona a la que estaban adaptados, se descubrió una mutación en uno de esos ratones relacionada con el color del pelaje, que favoreció a ese tipo de ratón. En fin, cabe destacar que las mutaciones pueden ser producto del azar. Por otro lado, hay que tener en cuenta que con millones y millones de años con cambios graduales, al comparar a un ser vivo antiguo con uno actual, las diferencias son bastantes. Pero bueno, solo mi opinión, saludos!
Thank you, of course, a mousetrap evolved one step at a time. It eats the mice and then has carnal knowledge of another mousetrap and produces lots of little baby mousetraps . I never would have worked that out myself. Thank you again, this article has changed my life. At the age of 64 and after giving up superstition at the age of 14 I’d been waiting for someone to show me evidence of the existence of the supernatural – and here it is. Whoopee.
I see what he’s saying, but we know that there are things that make copies of themselves, and these things are subject to changes that make them better at copying or not. If you start from a simple self-replicating protein it’s easy to see how, assuming the protein replicator is sufficiently stable such that it can continue copying and mutating, that eventually you get a convergence towards increased complexity because now you have more than one self-replicating protein vying for similar resources to copy, and only the ones that change such that they are better than the other ones by acquiring new ways of action are the ones that will be represented most frequently in the future. They have to in general gain function to compete. Keep iterating and iterating and you get more complexity. It doesn’t always go that way, you could imagine environmental circumstances where losing function is actually beneficial, but it simply doesn’t converge in that direction frequently enough such that we see lifeforms who aren’t complex, you know we’re not all just a bunch of single celled organisms living in some pond, we’re quite varied in our complexity.
ID is nothing more than Creation Science rebranded. Texas-based Foundation for Thought and Ethics “Dr” William Dempski, Senior Fellow of the “Discovery Institute” publishers of the Creationist/Intelligent Design Text book, Of Pandas and People. “The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was never blind to this fact, Intelligent Design on the other hand readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, Intelligent Design is just the Logos Theology of John’s gospel restated in the idiom of Information Theory. “
Imagine the mouse trap as a living thing. 1 billion years ago it was a simple life form and it only had the wooden platform, it use to feed on humidity instead of mice. 500 million years ahead in time a Ted different sort of wooden platform was born and in instead of just having the platform by itself this new plank was born a little different, because now it also has a little metal spring on it and it can feed not only of humidity but it also feeds on rust. Air goes dryer and the wooden Platforms that only Fed on humidity goes instinct while the wooden planks that has metal spring thrive feeding on rust, mating more, having more plank kids. 250 thousand years in the future another mutation happen and the wooden planks now have not only the metal spring but also the holding Barr that initially only serves the porpoise of assembling more rust, therefore it eats more, having more energy to mate and thrive. 5 thousand years ago another mutation happened and now that simple wooden platform that fed on humidity is now a Fully complex mouse trap that feeds exclusively on mice, while the past wooden Platforms that were way less complex than the mouse trap, are now all instinct.
Accepting the two entities into the comparison, I could say that the process of making the mouse trap is in itself an evolution. The mouse trap at this level is a finished object – it has survived in Darwinism’s terms : it can catch mice, which is a finished object at the same phase of evolution of the two objects- If the mice evolve in whatever direction, the mouse trap, if it is to survive as a mouse trap, has to follow this mutation and change into a mouse trap that could catch these mutant mice. If the situation is not so, then the mouse trap can not adapt itself and will disappear. Here, we can witness the disappearance of a mouse trap species.
This dude most likely thinks Wings on flying animals are irreducible complex. When in fact, if you look at an animal like a squirrel, it spends much of its time up in trees. And is light enough to jump from many trees. But if some of the fur in its armpits grows thicker, it has a slightly higher chance of evading predators because it can glide from higher and higher spots on a tree. So thousands of generations give it more and more of a primitive wing until you have a flying squirrel which is really a gliding squirrel. Etc etc
Imagine this. Just a sticky surface would be somewhat effective at catching mice. Then a sticky surface that folded a little would be better. Then a sticky surface that folded more would be better still. Then a sticky surface that fully folded. Then just a surface that folded because the stickiness is just getting in the way. Then a surface that folds in half but one side is stiffer then the other, allowing it to dig into the mouse a bit. Then keep making one side stiffer and better at digger in, whilst keeping the other side flat so the mouse can’t wriggle away. Add a couple of billion years and you might have something that resembles a mouse trap. A Venus fly trap for example.
The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement “Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design – which really means the reality of God’s creation – before the academic world and into the schools. This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It’s about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call “The wedge”. But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, “how to win”. Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do.” – Phillip E Johnson – the father of the ID/creation-science movement Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards
A better analogy would be iterations of the mousetrap as a whole For instance, version 1.0 would look like the one he holds Then version 1.1 might alter the killing hoop to be semi-circular Ver. 2.0 of the mousetrap might introduce a titanium component The mousetrap is the constant; Not the sum of its individual parts
See Dawkins’ distinction between designed, simple and designoid objects. Designed objects are those made or processed by man for a certain purpose. Simple objects are those created by natural processes which from a purpose lense doesn’t fulfill a purpose very well or not at all. Designoid objects are objects that seem very complex and as if they were designed for a purpose, but are actually the result of natural selection (which practically include all living beings including humans and some of living beings’ parts, like eyes). The mousetrap parallels in nature are all designoid objects. Their current form was created gradually through natural selection without their current function in mind as a goal, e.g. the human eye was created gradually with each of its iterations providing a relative advantage to the creature having it; however, it wasn’t constructed by an agent with a purpose to give sight to the animal, or create an eye.
Maybe at the start there was just a wooden plate. It was used so you can spot more easily, or hear, the mouse when it walks on it. It wasn’t able to catch anything by itself, but it slightly helped. Then the metallic bar evolved because its shiny surface attracted some mice, giving an advantage to the contraption. The spring formed slowly over time because it gave some movement to the bar, making it even more attractive to the mice, again being a competitive advantage. The particular individuals that had a bar that hit mice, even slightly, had a huge advantage. In the same way it’s not difficult to imagine an organic propeller evolving slowly over time from a very basic part that was used by the organism to move around, much less efficiently, or even for something else entirely. In fact this article helped me understand evolution and natural selection.
Trouble for Behe is, all the parts of the mousetrap existed before it was assembled. And each part had a perfectly good function before it was combined with other parts to become a mouse trap. Which destroys IR in 30 seconds. But Behe has had this explained to him many times and yet her persists in his LIE.
“Behe reveals how new scientific discoveries about DNA challenge evolution and point to powerful evidence for intelligent design rather than randomness.” Behe didn’t mention DNA at all in this article. Matter of fact, current DNA knowledge is something that highly supports natural selection, as Darwin and Wallace didn’t know what caused organisms to have different traits but just knew they had. And then we learned that traits are coded in DNA and that DNA changes (mutates) in certain conditions.
Maybe the goal of the current mouse trap wasn’t always to catch mice? What if the environment was much different many generations ago and so the “machine” best suited to survive didn’t need to catch mice. Maybe all that was needed early on was the wooden board and a spring to move? As the environment changed maybe the traits in the mouse trap population changed too. Those traps better adapted to live and reproduce had their traits carried on and eventually we ended up with the mouse trap of today? I mean what the heck if we are gonna go and use a mousetrap to explain a living thing might as well do it in a way to show how natural selection could create a mouse trap if a mousetrap had to survive and had the ability to reproduce; which it obviously does not.
Just like to say I don’t belong to any particular religion, I believe evolution is highly likely to be the origin of us all. With that said I do believe that it is also possible that there could be a divine being out there that I can’t comprehend the scope of that did create life with divine powers, but you could also argue that god was just an advanced intelligent being that seeded the earth with the building blocks of evolution or maybe he isn’t real and we all just exist by chance. Point being there are many possibilities and we shouldn’t close our minds to that fact by believing it’s one or the other.
I’d love to here his comments on genetic algorithms in computer science. While not entirely analogous to biological evolution there’s enough in parallel that warrants the comparison, and supports the concept of evolution and itteritive development. While a quantity of components of many designs that are produced synthetically through these algorithms are fundamental to the operation of these entities we can observe their presence, and often with the bennifits of retrospect we can reverse engineer the evolution timeliness to see how these systems and components became integrated in the entity. Through observation alone we can support Darwins theory. None of this strictly has to be contrasted to religion, there exists a method to be observed in every system, as natural science is fundamentally the study of all natural systems, including the development of living beings.
“All the available evidence indicates that living things started in simple form and that from this simple beginning the great diversity of present day plants and animals has developed. This statement is as true today as it was when it was made in 1949, in “College Zoology,” by Hunter and Hunter. It has a very good chapter on organic evolution.
This to me epitomises the greatest mystery of our existence (in my judgement), how such a seemingly intelligent person can be so utterly wrong and yet still be completely convinced they are schooling a much smarter person, wholly unable to grasp or accept the arguments against their position. Also, google the reducably complex mousetrap. Just for fun.
Never seen a more fundamental misunderstanding of Darwin’s theory. Let’s say this mouse trap has extremely tiny differences between another like it in the same environment; how about difference in spring tension for example. At which point we can say it’s likely the higher spring tension variant can have that slightly faster reaction over its neighbour and can be more likely to capture a mouse and thereby pass on its genes (if a mouse trap were to have genes, and the need to reproduce and relied on mice to survive and do so). Variations from one individual to their offspring almost never relies on “having a spring or not having a spring” that’s like saying every child is born with additional limbs or lacking a limb in order to have variation.
This just further explains Darwin’s Theory: Some animals develop small mutations and changes, in analogy to the mousetrap instead of a wooden platform, they can get a metal platform that improves their ability to survive, or they can get unlucky with the “mutation spinning wheel” and instead lose one of the components of the mousetrap, rendering them weak. And this follows Darwin’s ideal, where only animals that have a beneficial change are overly compensated with high reproduction and survivability rates above all other mutated animals in that species.
So you’re saying that Darwin’s theory doesn’t apply to mouse traps? Let me tell something, it was never about mouse traps to begin with. It’s more about populations adapting to changes in the environment through natural selection. I’d like to hear his views on mutations, recombination and genetic drift, since he calls himself a professor of biochemistry.
Unfortunately, the expert does not notice the fallacy of arguing from an analogy, which actually isn’t valid. The argument assumes that a mousetrap, which has no ability to produce offspring, is a suitable analogue for a living creature that does have offspring. Evolution is about descent with modification and primarily concerns the dynamics of populations, not individual entities. A mousetrap is a designed assembly; in fact, this analogy might better argue why designed entities do not resemble the life forms we observe. A designer, similar to us, would be unlikely to create machines capable of reproducing. For instance, out of the millions of human-designed objects, none, to my knowledge, has ever been designed to have offspring. Why would any designer do otherwise? Design implies purpose and function; if an entity replicates imperfectly, its ability to fulfill its function across successive generations is reduced—think of a copy of a copy on a copier. This expert seems unaware of such alternative arguments. The thesis that even molecules act like machines fails to consider the significant differences in chemical properties between a mousetrap and molecules. A mousetrap does not have a charge, the ability to form bonds, or a magnetic field, which are crucial for comparison with molecules that do. Accepting this argument means rejecting molecular theory, the common foundation for explaining the mechanisms of design. Furthermore, it incorrectly assumes that biological systems are directly comparable to human-made, mechanical devices in terms of complexity and function.
Darwin never claimed to have explained how living, reproducing, mutating, selecting and evolving creatures came into being. He only suggested that if you had ‘organisms’ with these characteristics, they would evolve through mutation and natural selection, just as life appears to have evolved on earth, over millions of years, and countless generations. Even 150 years later, we are still hypothesizing about the origin of life, and many biochemists are actively contributing to a variety of theses about the Origin of Life. But Darwin’s main thesis was called “The Origin of Species by Natural Selection”, not “The Origin of Life”. What we have here is the classic straw man argument. Behe has been caught in his own mousetrap.
The idea that seemingly irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve has been refuted through evolutionary mechanisms, such as exaptation (the adaptation of organs for entirely new functions) and the use of “scaffolding”, which are initially necessary features of a system that later degenerate when they are no longer required.
It’s an argument from incredulity. How could something as complex as the cell come about on it’s own? That seems unlikely. There must be a designer of the cell. OR over billions of years on one planet in billions statistically something miraculous is assured to happen. That life would arise and through deep time become more complex. Like bruh, miracles exist. They are just understood now.
“Oh let’s remove parts, see it no longer works. Thus Evolution is false” The design of a modern bridge didn’t just appear out of nowhere… and removing any one of those parts can cause the bridge to collapse or stop functioning properly. The design of a modern bridge started simple, likely just a log or fallen tree across a SMALL stream. A simple goal for a simple design. But if you wanted to make a bigger bridge, a more stable bridge, a longer lasting bridge, or really improve upon it in any way, the design needs to change. Maybe we tie the log to a heavy stone or cover the ends in dirt so it doesn’t move or shake when you cross it. Then maybe you start tying multiple small trees together rather than using 1 large tree (so that you have a wider bridge) Maybe build a little island out of heavy rocks in the middle of the stream so that you can have a longer bridge (the pile of rocks acts like a pillar support in this case) Maybe refine the logs/trees into planks so make a smoother walking surface. Or ditch wood entirely and just use a bunch of stones “glued” together with clay. You get the idea.
This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. To borrow from your own metaphor, evolution doens’t say that the mousetrap kept trying to evolve until it got it right, it says that it was a very basic mousetrap which might have caught only the tail of the mouse or maybe a whisker, then it gradually became more complex and more efficient at catching the whole mouse.
Most of the stupid guys below didn’t understand this mans point and just ridiculed his mouse trap comparison.. All he’s trying to say is that Darwins theory is what it is.. A THEORY.. They have no way of analyzing atoms and cells during their time unlike today.. he is just saying that cells are way too complicated to evolved on its own. He didn’t tried to bring any God theory, he is just stating it as it is..
Charles Darwin was an interesting guy. He came from an elitist family. His grandfather married a Wedgewood (rich family in UK famous for pottery). His father married a Wedgewood and he married a Wedgewood. When she died he married her sister. Basically these were elitist families obsessed with bloodlines. Darwin’s family also had links to freemasonry (obviously). He appears to have been chosen by the royal society (another elitist organisation) to write a work of fiction about a theory called evolution. In his book he admits that the fossil record does not support the theory as no fossil ever found shows that it had evolved. They all showed already complete species. However he explained this away by saying that the fossil record was ‘incomplete’. Fast forward 150 years and no fossils that have been found since prove that species evolved. The origin of the species book was also published around the same time that dinosaurs appeared on the scene. It appears that the dinosaur hoax was invented to give credibility to the evolution hoax by providing a long timeline of billions of years for evolution to happen. And there you go, over the next few decades science slowly began to replace religion. Brilliant freemasonic sorcery in action. All documented and all there in plain sight for anyone with their eyes open to se
the mouse trap analogy is easily disproven by analogy of another complex and very functionally structured thing: any city on the planet. cut the city off from any others and remove a crucial part, say, all power lines. or modern water pipes. turn off the internet everywhere. completely remove any major part of the administration in the city without notice. obviously, everything will fall apart. but something being crucial for functionality right now doesn’t mean that it always was, and thus always existed. power lines being cut now is only a problem because every change in the city that followed after was built with “power lines are a thing that exists and that we can rely on” in mind. the thing you look at now is not necessarily what was there when the change you look at first happened. if you look at cells or animals, you need to consider that we have, for a large part, no clue about the order that things developed in, when you look at the thing at first. We can not say EXACTLY down to the cellular level how every organism on earth functioned for the last hundreds of thousands of years, like we can backtrack the most recent centuries of city planning and the reasons for changes. Just because we can’t imagine something functioning without a part we consider crucial, that doesn’t mean it never did or never could. it just takes a crazy amount of time for complex, developing things to adjust to change.
More like expert in saying nonsense e. We see tuns of gradual change over time and it can’t be anything, it’s not physically possible to appear at once, this shouldn’t even be a discussion Also, the history of the earth is bigger than the earth itself, it’s not possible to find all fossils and every little detail because of how many are destroyed and what is not destroyed ends up in the depths of the earth. So no, there is no “lack of proof”. We clearly se the pattern of gradual change over time. And this is fossil work and not a time machine, it’s impossible to find every detail but you can see a easy general idea of what happened. And it’s not darwinion evolution, it’s natural evolution . I do believe something might have started the appearance of life but it doesn’t look like a god at all.
Sure it can be made gradually. You just can’t have the same goal. When you’re 2, you’re success isn’t measured in how much money you make. When you’re 10 your success still isn’t measured in how much money you make. When you’re 16 your success isn’t measured in how much money you make (but here’s the important part, a 16 year old is capable of making money) So a 16 year olds goal might be to build a social group that’s independent of the family, or to gain more freedom from the family… a 16 year old that can make $50 a week isn’t more successful than a 16 that makes $500 a week. But he can use that money to pay for gas or movie tickets or anything else that helps his original metric of success. Our world is filled with products that used to be marketed for a different use 20 or so years ago. But they evolved into their current use.
And here we see the typical creationist either being intentionally false with repeated, oft-debunked lies, or parroting the wrong thing they believe despite zero evidence supporting their beliefs. As usual, the creationists don’t understand what it is they’re trying to debunk. And as has been said countless times, Irreducible Complexity is outright false. Completely scientifically debunked.
So I’m curious Mr. Behe, exactly what progress has Intelligent Design made in the last 3 or 4 decades? What scientific impact have these “discoveries” or ideas had in the field? What sort of explanatory or predictive power do they have? Especially when compared to the currently accepted natural mechanisms through which populations are know to diversify and evolve?
From Wikipedia; Michael Joseph Behe is an American biochemist and an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID). He serves as Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Behe advocates for the validity of the argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design. Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where his views were cited in the ruling that intelligent design is not science and is religious in nature. Behe’s claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe’s views and intelligent design.
The moment he compared a piece of technology, in this case a mouse trap with the complexity of life he lost his argument. My point is this, If I leave two mouse traps lying next to each other, you cannot get a third mouse trap. Leave two mice next to each other (a male and a female, yes there are only two genders) you can have a third. That third will have qualities from both its parents, these inherent qualities change depending on the parents, if they are beneficial it will make the mouse stronger, if they are not then it is not.