The Man Behind the Curtain: Evolutionists React to The Voyage

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 29, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Nothing exposes the failure of a dogma more than the propaganda it hides behind. Pathetic ideas cannot stand the light of day. They run from open inquiry and call everyone a liar. Evolution is pathetic–not because it is a religiously motivated idea with little scientific support, but because of its deceitful cover up. It makes religious proclamations and then points the finger at others. It is scientifically absurd yet it claims to be a fact. And when probed, watch out.

Continue reading here.

Comments

ScottAndrews
How and why did birds evolve?
Rirds could have evolved. As it turned out in this universe, birds evolved instead. If the tape of evolution was rewound it's unlikely things would play out in exactly the same way. Asking why birds evolved is aking to asking why a sandpile chose a particular moment to collapse.Echidna-Levy_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Upright
It is patently not true that when we approach such irreducible systems (blood-clotting, the chemical vision cascade, flagella, etc), that “We can remove parts and the system will keep on working.” What you claim is not true, and can be dismissed as such.
Is the Hagemann factor something that can be removed from the blood clotting system and have it work still? If we find a blood clotting system without that component does that prove the blood clotting system is not IC? Yes/No?Echidna-Levy_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
ID can’t answer any question.
Apparently neither can you. How and why did birds evolve?ScottAndrews_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Don’t try making it my fault that you can’t answer the question.
ID can't answer any question. It takes any incomplete or partial answer as "I don't know" = design!David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg: Echidna asked for an ID explanation of where birds came from, which is a nonsensical question. It's like asking me whose face is on a $-32.78 dollar bill. Don't try making it my fault that you can't answer the question. Any reasonable and neutral onlooker can see through your evasion. You've compared ID to evolution as if the latter is the gold standard of explanatory power. But, when put to the test, it offers no explanation. Like the little man behind the curtain, "Come back tomorrow!" I'm challenging that evolutionary theory cannot answer my question at all. If you know the answer but refuse to defend the theory, then why are you wasting your time on this forum? Just admit that evolutionary theory doesn't explain evolution, and leave it at that.ScottAndrews_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

BTW, from the name, Echidna is likely a woman. Let me repost Echidna's comment above:
In fact I know the answer to that question and will gladly supply it to any level of detail you require once you tell me your theory of how the intelligent designer created birds.
To which ScottAndrews replied:
ID isn’t a theory of how anything was made, ever. That explanation isn’t coming, ever.
He should have stopped at "ID isn't a theory," but hey. Scott to ID compatriots: "What . . . is your favorite color?" "Blue." "You may pass." A little science from the ID side please? Just a teensy-tiny bit? Pretty please?David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

ionfeld:
Have you checked out the progress of OOL research over recent years? There is certainly no need to break any natural laws for it to happen, and it is perfectly in keeping with what we know of physics and chemistry.
Yes I have and abiogenesis is a bigger myth now than it ever has been. If, like Echidna-Levy and his flawless knowledge of bird evolution, you know how life began, I recommend you stop wasting time on this blog and immediately go publish in any of the most esteemed scientific journals.Jehu_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg.
In fact, you’re BS’ing. You’re playing Monty Python’s bridgekeeper. No answer from evolutionary will ever “as much detail as [you] would like,” because you will keep saying you need more.
What utter tripe. If Echidna-Levy knows the mechanisms, causes, and steps of bird evolution he should stop wasting time on this blog and immediately publish in Nature or Science, because the whole world of evolutionary science would love to know how birds evolved.Jehu_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews: Iconofid: We’ve been here before. Unable to explain the origin of life via natural forces, you do some hand-waving to eliminate the possibility you’re ideologically opposed to. Presto! The seemingly impossible is now a scientific inevitability, even with no science to back it up. It’s a card trick Do we have a step by step detailed explanation of the formation of the earth, or the Saturn system with its rings and moons at this moment in time? If not, does that mean that magic is required? Does it mean that Mr. Andrews would be being rational to stick his god in the gaps? Have you checked out the progress of OOL research over recent years? There is certainly no need to break any natural laws for it to happen, and it is perfectly in keeping with what we know of physics and chemistry. It is only creationists who will tell you it is impossible (as they always have) and now, of course, some I.D.ists (not all, actually).iconofid_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews:
It’s been several hours since Echidna-Levy pronounced that he knows what the mechanisms, causes, and steps of bird evolution were, and could provide them in as much detail as I would like.
Not really. Echidna suggested you provide something on your side, and you declined. In fact, you're BS'ing. You're playing Monty Python's bridgekeeper. No answer from evolutionary will ever "as much detail as [you] would like," because you will keep saying you need more. Meanwhile your standard for ID is along the lines of "What . . . is your favorite color?"David Kellogg_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Iconofid: We've been here before. Unable to explain the origin of life via natural forces, you do some hand-waving to eliminate the possibility you're ideologically opposed to. Presto! The seemingly impossible is now a scientific inevitability, even with no science to back it up. It's a card trick.ScottAndrews_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

UprightBiPed: In response to my post at 142, Icon says at 143: Ask your fellow I.D. supporter, herb You want me to ask Herb my question to you? Okay. Herb - does the existence of a person (or a personality) change any of the physical effects of matter as we know them. Which was originally this: What does Ken Ham, or any other person, have to do with the observable evidence that chance cannot coordinate disperate objects within molecular systems? Or, that researchers know of no qualities associated with chance mechanisms that could create the patterns observed in the sequencing of nucleotides? To which my answer was this: "Ask your fellow I.D. supporter, herb, who thinks the Kentucky Flintstones museum provides scientific I.D. education. Do you agree or disagree?" So, do you agree or disagree that the creation museum provides a scientific I.D. education? I still don't have an answer. Do you, or the I.D. movement as a whole, support this museum? Then UprightB. quotes icon: "As for “chance”, researchers certainly know of no way that it could assemble intelligent designers of life prior to life existing. That’s why they expect natural selection to be involved in the chemical evolution of life." And says, with commendable honesty: Such an odd question is certainly outside of empirical science, would you not agree? That’s why no one, certainly not me, asks such things. An apparent agreement with those who claim that I.D. is not science. Then: For instance we know that there are no physical forces that can account for the sequencing of nucleotides in DNA, and we know that chance operates by repeating maximum certainty, and is therefore incapable or coordinating and organizing discreet physical objects with living tissue. No, you do not know this, and cannot. It is a "god of the gaps" argument. And you are inadvertently making the case that natural intelligent designers can't exist. Yet we're here. The evidence is heavily against you. Now, you're the guy who's fond of "null hypotheses", if I remember rightly. So here's one for you, and it's based on observations, without exceptions to the rule. "Organized FSCI is a prerequisite for the existence of intelligent designers." (Icon's law :). You can substitute sequenced nucleotides for FSCI, if you want). Icon's law is as well or better supported than Pasteur's law. Therefore, the existence of FSCI cannot, in itself, be evidence for I.D.iconofid_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

It's been several hours since Echidna-Levy pronounced that he knows what the mechanisms, causes, and steps of bird evolution were, and could provide them in as much detail as I would like. While we wait, I'll share some advice that Mr. Echidna offered in another thread:
Put on your shining armour of truth and get your sword of justice and make your case where people can ask you questions about your “facts” and you can respond.
Is that how you really feel, or is that just something you tell other people?ScottAndrews_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

Ohh... and random mutation working on functional organisms is observable in everyday. It is called Cancer. So as South Park sayed, ppl are retarded fish... fish suffering from Cancer. Only Evolutionists somehow ommit the only really observable RM working on real organisms, coz it looks ugly!Shazard_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

In response to my post at 142, Levy says:
Upright, Take your pick…
So, after being given repeated chances to substantiate your claim that: “We can remove parts and the system will keep on working” (regarding irreducible systems) ...we can now assume that when you were simply being dishonest (or perhaps careless and loose with what you actually know to be true). It is patently not true that when we approach such irreducible systems (blood-clotting, the chemical vision cascade, flagella, etc), that “We can remove parts and the system will keep on working.” What you claim is not true, and can be dismissed as such.Upright BiPed_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Oh guys, you have written greate meny things about what use ID is for. I like think about science as a way to give ppl good technologies. Any discipline which brings me cheaper beer on table then preivous, is good science. So... question about ID and Evolution is... what technologies they put on table. Evolution put ideological materialism as technology. It gives ungodly ppl some sense of comfort that nobody is watching them, and they are final reason and cause of any morality. Well, it IS technology, social technology... What does ID gives. ID gives method. It is like light bulb which enlighens dark parts of rooms where science is going. ID tells us WHERE to look and WHAT FOR to look. As it was sayed here... it tells us something about information. It gives us method of reasearch. It gives us workable assumptions and hypothesis to work on... Its grant claim, if something is designed, then it is functional brings us very greate technology of method - if we find out that something is designed, we can ask for money to research it's functionality. But if somebody says, it is JUNK, and everybody buys it, then we will stuck into darg ages for several decades, until somebody goes and finds out that JUNK is functional Junk. ID gives us tools and means to disntingush junk from complexity. Grand ID result would be Intelligence Detection Technique... Formal methods to detect artificial artefacts... wouldn't that be greate technology! And... if ID is obsessed with design, then ID for today is only discipline having ANY chances of creating AI! Also... I see ppl here infere process from static data. They observe static fossils, and infere nature of process which produced such pattern. Only observable process who is able today produce static "fossils" of complex machines is human mind... Where Evolutionists actually come with idea that there is possible another proceess of "machine fossile" production capabilities? Why not take the one we can observe here out in the window? Why make things complex? Why not take the very osbervable process and phenomena as given? If you dig up all the old cars starging from 19th century, you will see the same "evolution", parts being added, better cars created, different species appearing... Patter is THE SAME... But we KNOW process which created the pattern. Then why invent another process and nature, why not infere design, as it is the only observable, testable and detectable way to explain evolution of machines. Somebody brought up language evolution... And somehow ppl missed, that it was possible only as result of mind! I don't know any theory of language differing on random mutations or appearing from nowhere... Any changes in languages, blending, diversing allways comes as the result of mind working... So how does language evolution gives arguments to Evolutionists? It refutes it again! Evolution without mind is not possible nor observable! Why claim otherwise without evidence of the process? And if one says, that "adaptation" is evidence of evolution, then try to design machines wich adapt to environment, and then say again - that it is task achievable by unguided random chance. Which of you would fly on airplain whos software is designed by Evolutionar process... And... why do we still do coding, why don't we yoke that very clear, specified and factual process of evolution into real sofware production of novel features... And don't say ourday computers wouldn't be able to produce severam million generations a day, to achieve real functional machine designes of cell level nanoscale complexity for us to use in everyday! Se... EVolutionists do big talks, they somehow hide the process from ppl to use... As I sayed, measurement of science is technology... Intelectual satisfaction of given story wouldn't qualify as technology per se!Shazard_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Icon, In response to my post at 142, Icon says at 143:
Ask your fellow I.D. supporter, herb
You want me to ask Herb my question to you? Okay. Herb - does the existence of a person (or a personality) change any of the physical effects of matter as we know them? Now after he answers,, you can answer the same question.
As for “chance”, researchers certainly know of no way that it could assemble intelligent designers of life prior to life existing. That’s why they expect natural selection to be involved in the chemical evolution of life.
Such an odd question is certainly outside of empirical science, would you not agree? That’s why no one, certainly not me, asks such things. Perhaps you could focus your attention on the actual issues, or explain why you refuse to.
As with all pluralists, it’s against my ideology for no-one to do anything that violates my ideology.
One of the hallmarks of proper scientific investigation is to limit the effects of one's personal ideology to a position coming after an understanding of the observable evidence, not as a filter for whatever conclusions you make. Perhaps you were not aware of this.
The post I was replying to wasn’t science, neither is the “god of the gaps” bit in the one I’m replying to now.
You seem to misunderstand the term “God of the Gaps”. It refers to inserting an ideological answer where ever we have no understanding of the subject at hand. In this case, the issue is not raised by what we don’t know, but by what we do know. For instance we know that there are no physical forces that can account for the sequencing of nucleotides in DNA, and we know that chance operates by repeating maximum certainty, and is therefore incapable or coordinating and organizing discreet physical objects with living tissue. If you do not have evidence that there are, in fact, some natural forces that can account for the linear sequencing of nucleotides, or perhaps an observation where chance is seen as not operating under maximum uncertainty and has brought about complex algorithmic coordination of discreet objects - then we are rationally obliged to operate under what we do know by means of scientific observation, instead of what we don’t know by means of your ideological preconceptions. That is called empirical science. On the other hand, if you insist on injecting your ideology above what we actually know to be true by means of observation and testing, then it is not a “God of the Gaps” fallacy that is being committed, but instead it is nothing more than a person insisting that their ideology not be subject to falsification by known evidence. If you’d like to think up a fancy name for that, then be my guest.Upright BiPed_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

"Take it up with Behe. He’s the one who defined “irreducible complexity”, not me." It is not a specific definition of IC that is under debate or who originally formulated it but rather the concept it represents. It is if a path can be found that gradually leads to a supposed IC system. That is the issue. If such a path is easily found and plausible then the system would not be classified as IC. We can use our imaginations to construct possible paths but the issue is if these paths actually existed and if they did why they do not currently exist. The best way to falsify Behe is to find these partial paths and their intermediary functions. Behe proposed an interesting problem and one that science should willingly investigate because it represents a thorny issue for the dominant paradigm. By the way one of the problems with the dominant paradigm is the lack of these paths which have been hypothesized to have happened for nearly everything in evolution. The dead ends should be there as well as the completed paths because every dead end represents a functional organism or system. Behe's second book expanded on this problem of generating intermediaries by hypothesizing a limit to what natural process can do. This hypothesis will be tested in the future as genome after genome is mapped and then understood. This is one way that either Behe's thesis will be verified or over turned. Right now I do not see too many of these partial path ways illustrated. I am sure some exist but all must have existed at one time for the theory to be viable. Many will have gone extinct but most should be around somewhere since the organisms with them were completely viable and should have left descendants. Just as the SINEs, LINEs, ERVs, AREs, pseudogenes etc still exist, so should these dead ends. The question is where are they. That is one of the big questions science will try to answer in the next 30 years or longer.jerry_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection
This has been hypothesized, never demonstrated. It's not sufficient to suggest how natural processes might produce IC.ScottAndrews_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

iconofid:
That’s why they expect natural selection to be involved in the chemical evolution of life.
It can't be. NS is only AFTER living organisms appear, not before. "Pre-biotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms." T Dozhansky.Joseph_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Echidna-Levy, What is the evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents can cobble together regulatory networks and genetic toolkits? You throw around HOX genes and your position has no way of explaining how they even arose. 2 specified mutations- just 2- takes 25 million years in a population of fruit flies. Do you think bird from non-bird required more than 2 specified mutations?Joseph_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Tajimas D:
Despite the fact that we know the IC is a flawed concept because evolution CAN produce what you call “irreducible complexity”, are you just going to keep labelling things “irreducibly complex” if we don’t already have an precise explanation for their origin?
The theory of evolution is a flawed concept, yet it goes on. "Evolution" is not being debated and an accumulation of genetic accidents has never been observed to produce an IC system. Or perhaps you could reference the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates such a thing.
“Coyne’s conclusion that design is unfalsifiable, however, seems to be at odds with the arguments of other reviewers of my book. Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the “acid test” on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle first thought, or if Barry Hall’s work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the National Academy of Science’s Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which they think shows that irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: “However, structures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection.” (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22) Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable. In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven. How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.”-Dr Behe
IOW if it ever demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter without agency involvement, ID falls as living organisms are the ultimate in IC.Joseph_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Tajimas D, What do you know of ID? I take it from your response you don't know very much, IC is alive and well. Yuo say:
First, let’s ignore the fact that IC (as defined by Behe) was originally a prediction of evolutionary theory made by H.J. Muller, and the falsity that Behe’s IC cannot evolve.
Yet IC is not anti-evolution, the alleged prediction is bogus- no reasoning behind it.
For all three of the major examples of IC proposed by Behe (the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, and the blood-clotting cascade), we’ve examined them and determined that he’s wrong. We can remove parts and the system will keep on working.
That is false. IC core parts cannot be removed and still have the system function. Ken Miller's blood-clotting has been shown to be bogus. ID can be tested.
No. Individual cases, like the ones I’ve listed above can be tested. ID cannot. No matter how many examples of supposed IC we investigate and debunk, there will always be more unknowns lurking around that you can label IC.
Dr Behe addressed that so your ignorance is not a refutation. And seeing that the theory of evolution can't be objectively tested I would say you should focus on your position as opposed to arguing from ignorance against ID. Ya see all you have to do to falsify ID is to actually support your position with real scientific data, Good luck with that.Joseph_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Echidna-Levy: Distraction #1. ID isn't a theory of how anything was made, ever. That explanation isn't coming, ever. You're saying that you know the answer but you refuse to give it. I don't believe you. No one does. What are the causes, mechanisms, and steps that resulted in bird evolution?ScottAndrews_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews
So I ask again, what are the causes, mechanisms, and steps that resulted in bird evolution?
In fact I know the answer to that question and will gladly supply it to any level of detail you require once you tell me your theory of how the intelligent designer created birds.Echidna-Levy_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Upright Take your pick http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&scoring=r&as_ylo=2007&q=%22eye+gene%22+knockout&spell=1 A random example
Homeobox genes play a number of critical roles in early central nervous system (CNS) patterning[1]. The Mbx gene, a novel paired-type homeobox gene, was identified in the zebrafish and human genomes[2]. The MBX homeodomain possesses some similarities to that of Pax family proteins. Since knockdown of mbx expression by morpholino antisense oligonucleotides (mbx-MO) leads to a reduction in the size of the eyes and tectum in the zebrafish[2], mbx function has been proposed to be involved in anterior brain development, including the formation of the eyes and tectum.
Why don't you pick a paper and present your objection?Echidna-Levy_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

Echidna-Levy, David Kellogg, etc., I claimed yesterday that evolutionary science offers no explanation of how birds evolved, and challenged you correct me. Is this not what evolutionary theory does, explain how living things evolved? Without any scientific detail explaining how such a transition took place, your explanation is reduced to 'they evolved,' with a bunch of guesses piled on top. Pretty thin on science, as Mr. Kellogg would say. So I ask again, what are the causes, mechanisms, and steps that resulted in bird evolution? Neutral readers, observe the creative excuses and counter-charges used to distract from the lack of an answer to this simple question. Be careful to distinguish between science and guessing. Do not take your eye off the question.ScottAndrews_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

UprightBiPed: What does Ken Ham, or any other person, have to do with the observable evidence that chance cannot coordinate disperate objects within molecular systems? Or, that researchers know of no qualities associated with chance mechanisms that could create the patterns observed in the sequencing of nucleotides? Ask your fellow I.D. supporter, herb, who thinks the Kentucky Flintstones museum provides scientific I.D. education. Do you agree or disagree? As for "chance", researchers certainly know of no way that it could assemble intelligent designers of life prior to life existing. That's why they expect natural selection to be involved in the chemical evolution of life. 2) So, you have an ideological battle against how American parents raise their children, and apparently, your battle will be complete when no one does anything that violates your ideology. As with all pluralists, it's against my ideology for no-one to do anything that violates my ideology. :) 3) You expect to be taken seriously on both counts. …all science so far Icon.:) The post I was replying to wasn't science, neither is the "god of the gaps" bit in the one I'm replying to now. :)iconofid_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

"Here is a list of eye types" Yup.IRQ Conflict_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

Thanks Levy, Based on your exciting claim "“We can remove parts and the system will keep on working”, I was merely asking for the exact "part" that "we can remove" and the “system will keep on working”. I wasn't actually asking about diseases, or damaged organs. I don't particularly think of diseases and damaged organs in the same way as researchers and scientists removing "parts" to show that the "system will keep on working". And, you certainly don't have to use the example I gave, please feel free to offer the cascading organization of ANY sight system you wish, then please give the "part" that can be removed and have "the system () keep on working” Can you do that, thanks!Upright BiPed_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply