Am I to assume that this is the question to which you are looking for an answer Bobby?

Why do you believe that the conditions favorable for multi-cellular organisms to develop from bacteria have occurred since Darwin proposed his theory?

Yes. ID's protobiont comment was a reply to that. What a shame that because ID does not like me he refuses to answer it. Not that the refusal to answer is any great surprise, over the time ID has been here, it's been a fairly consistent tactic of his to state that nobody answers his questions, and he answers those of others, whereas the truth is clear for all to see in our exchange.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Nice try boi's. ;-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Who said it wasn't worth while? I know it works, evolution anyhow. As I have said we use it to make chickens with huge breats, and cows that have the same.

However it was good for you to change the name you called me, you should even remove this last one too.

Alas, you have no proof of species change...

...and that is what I take issue with, please pay attention if you can.

Tell me how Neo Darwin people like yourself explain the Cambrian explosion? Don't tell me oxygen, that doesn't account for the information transfer needed for all that life... ;-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

WK you are so eloquent. As an aside I want to see if ID will get his RAC up to 100 with his new computer.

---

LOL! Ah, wintergreen my science is better then your science. We have logic, you have none.

Reverse engineering is a science. And applies in my science very well. You nor anyone else has addressed it other then to dismiss it, and that isn't science. LOL!

Idiot Design, show me where your links have demonstrated that they have done any worthwhile science.
Until that day then your claims of science are just Bovine Excrement.

LOL! Ah, wintergreen my science is better then your science. We have logic, you have none.

Reverse engineering is a science. And applies in my science very well. You nor anyone else has addressed it other then to dismiss it, and that isn't science. LOL!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Good, good, more science. It's wrong, but it's science.

Ah but it is, which is more that can be said for your links.

So here's some more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE

"Irreducible Complexity":
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIWODwjB0I4
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HH_V7mXlfk

Good, good, more science. It's wrong, but it's science.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

+1

irreducibly complex

One easily testable form of complex and specified information 'CSI' is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.


http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

A change into another species would take a vary large amount of information. Ergo the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago, that ID has a problem with---that cannot be explained by Neo-Darwinism. And Oxygen just doesn't cut it either, not by itself...

Irreducible complexity cut down to size

genetic drift does not account for all the information needed to change a species into another

I have just done the accounting you asked for

of course you may try to change my mind, it is open---for some things ;-)

so you don't want to use the National Academy of Sciences as a baseline...LOL ok

i believe wintergreen would call it peeing on my leg and calling it rain, i understand it well, it's how i see neo-darwin...

i am sorry you have seen a bass and called it a herring, i toss all of them back less then 14 inches. i will accept the bait and switch of neo-darwin if you will accept my bass? deal?

Your turn Anniet...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Am I to assume that this is the question to which you are looking for an answer Bobby?

Why do you believe that the conditions favorable for multi-cellular organisms to develop from bacteria have occurred since Darwin proposed his theory?

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

How about--no.

You and I will have NO banter.

I don't like you nor will I talk with you any more...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

why do you accept a protobiont gave rise to all i see with my two eyes?

Because there's currently no better theory for all I see with my eyes. How about you answer the question you were asked?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Just a little help, in video format, for those who struggle with understanding Evolution, Creationism, Atheism and More.

N.B. It might take you some time, there are over 1,200 video's.

Have fun.

why do you accept a protobiont gave rise to all i see with my two eyes?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

genetic drift does not account for all the information needed to change a species into another

I have just done the accounting you asked for

of course you may try to change my mind, it is open---for some things ;-)

so you don't want to use the National Academy of Sciences as a baseline...LOL ok

i believe wintergreen would call it peeing on my leg and calling it rain, i understand it well, it's how i see neo-darwin...

i am sorry you have seen a bass and called it a herring, i toss all of them back less then 14 inches. i will accept the bait and switch of neo-darwin if you will accept my bass? deal?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Evolution #2: Some scientists associate the word “evolution” with the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past, known as the Theory of Universal Common Descent. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree.

I agree here. And I also disagree.

It has to do more with Kingdoms then anything else. I have already stated that we can look at bacteria for hundreds of more years if you like but we will not see that change into anything else other then bacteria. Refer to # 1 once more, it will change a little over time but will not move up the tree of life into another species. There is a reason for more then one kingdom.

Why do you believe that the conditions favorable for multi-cellular organisms to develop from bacteria have occurred since Darwin proposed his theory?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

irreducibly complex

That sounds as if you are stating that you don't understand something so you are making up a fairy tale to explain.

---

+1

irreducibly complex

One easily testable form of complex and specified information 'CSI' is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.


http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

A change into another species would take a vary large amount of information. Ergo the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago, that ID has a problem with---that cannot be explained by Neo-Darwinism. And Oxygen just doesn't cut it either, not by itself...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

A comment on the 3 stages or types of evolution under discussion. My reading of this is that ID accepts that mutations can give rise to variation within species, but cannot give rise to new species (or kingdoms etc). That is, there is a limitation on how much variation can arise through mutation alone, and that therefore an additional mechanism is required to account for the observed variety of species. ID proposes that this mechanism involves an intelligent designer. i.e mutation + designer = all species.

Thank you Brendan!!! :) You've helped clarify something I knew I'd got murky in my head... but couldn't quite pin down :) Greatly appreciated. :)