Tautology Wiki

back to http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology

Youtube video on Type-III secretory mechanism[]

* "....natural selection does have to work gradually.."
* "...NS is blind...."
* ".... produced by evolution...."




http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=1067 evol by chance 1995

Miller pragmatics[]

"..I often hear people say that they're not descended from monkeys. Well, they're right..."

* http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html
* http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html

"...Miller: Well, I often hear people say that they're not descended from monkeys, and they would defy me or anybody else to show that they are. Well, they're right, they're not descended from monkeys. They're not descended from chimps or monkeys or gorillas or any other living organism..."

But in this thread http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b411887c7b5/ec81c846c43a2ae7#ec81c846c43a2ae7

UC, John Wilkins, Harsman and others came to the conclusion that CA was a deliberate deception, a three shell game with words to confuse the issues that materialists believe humans came from an ape like creature. Ape and monkey are terms used in the vernacular colloquial sense and are perfectly valid terms. The real reason Miller is objecting to "monkey" is because it is used in a derogatory sense to make fun of evolutionists. Replacing "monkey" with say "simian" doesn't change anything about the facts it merely replaces on vernacular for another.

CA is a bogus term meant to deceive people , read http://tinyurl.com/366sgc on Google groups to find out why.

How does evolution work[]

"... the way that evolution works ....". "... if you have a complex multipart device, its function everyone agrees, can be favoured by natural selection. But the argument is evolution can't produce them because the individual parts have no function of their own.... How does evolution explain something like this..."

Pope on ToE[]


Pope says that there are theories(plural) and not a single theory.

natural selection[]


KENNETH R. MILLER: What Darwin pointed out was a general principle, which is easily observed in nature: species are not fixed, that with natural selection pushing or pulling or splitting, species can change over time.

Evolutionary theory[]

"...Matches evolutionary theory, namely that the parts should have a function of their own and not the ID prediction ...."

slight modifications[]


Says that: "Evolution is a natural process"

Why does the intelligent design movement regard the flagellum as unevolvable? Because it is said to possesses a quality known as "irreducible complexity." Irreducibly complex structures, we are told, could not have been produced by evolution, or, for that matter, by any natural process. They do exist, however, and therefore they must have been produced by something. That something could only be an outside intelligent agency operating beyond the laws of nature – an intelligent designer. That, simply stated, is the core of the new argument from design, and the intellectual basis of the intelligent design movement.

Unlike Paley, however, he raised the argument to a new level, claiming to have discovered a scientific principle that could be used to prove that certain structures could not have been produced by evolution. That principle goes by the name of "irreducible complexity."

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe 1996b)

The phrase "numerous, successive, slight modifications" is not accidental. The very same words were used by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species in describing the conditions that had to be met for his theory to be true. As Darwin wrote, if one could find an organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," his "theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin 1859, 191). To anti-evolutionists, the bacterial flagellum is now regarded as exactly such a case – an "irreducibly complex system" which "cannot be produced directly by numerous successive, slight modifications." A system that could not have evolved – a desperation punch that just might win the fight in the final round – a tool with which the theory of evolution can be brought down.


"... 3) Conclusion: Therefore, irreducibly complex structures could not have been produced by natural selection..."

See EvolutionAndNaturalSelectionWhichIsTheCauseAndEffect