Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stonehenge and Irreducible Complexity
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 31 of 33 (160708)
11-17-2004 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jjburklo
11-17-2004 3:36 PM


Re: evolving a better mousetrap.
[edit] ok, LONG offtopic reply. i suggest we take SOME of this to another thread.
So not every animal has the same process of clotting blood. Regardless, evolution has to account for blood clotting in humans, which as far as I can see is an IC.
if you can remove a component, and have the system still work, it's not ic. even by behe's twisted definition (that it must maintain the SAME function), human blood is not ic, because it still works minus one component. dolphins lack something humans have, but their blood still clots. therefore, human blood cannot be ic. maybe dolphins' blood can.
My main objection comes from my faith as a Christian. The Bible won't allow for evolution
i've studied the bible much more than i've studied biology (MUCH more). and i'd have to say that that statement is just plain wrong. it comes from a fundamental(ist) misunderstanding of the text, its nature and purpose.
For me the Bible is authoritative, which I'm sure you will disagree and your entitled to it.
i strongly suggest taking a bible class at college. the bible is far from authoritative (covering everything), but it does not intend to be. books have specific purposes, authors (plural), and styles. they're trying to get across certain messages, and NOT convey the facts.
for instance, we have a babylonian record of king shalmanesser iii defeating king jehu of israel. where is that mentioned in the bible? the bible LIKES jehu, because he works towards unifying israel and judah again. and so it doesn't record the bad things. but other kings who worked with surrounding nations to actually hold off the babylonian invasion only get the bad things recorded, and not the fact that they clobbered shalmanesser, which we also have some record of.
But I've experienced the truth of the Bible and a relationship with Jesus Christ.
i have too. but i don't think it has anything to do with biology.
Natural selection is a loss of genetic information. It eliminates genes from the pool. It's comparable to a company losing money every year yet still making a profit? That doesn't make sense in my eyes.
this is also a fundamental misuderstanding. i'm suprised at this after three years of bio. natural selection is not a loss, because things reproduce.
suppose i'm selling posters. i have three posters for sale, britney spears, christiana aguilera, and celine dion. just for this we'll even the playing field: all my posters will be the same price, both to order and on the rack for sale.
now, 50% of my sales are britney, 45% are christina, and a lowly 5% are celine. the next order i place, am i gonna order more celine's? or more britney's? yes, i'm losing celine, but i'm making more money by getting more of thing that does better.
when the manufacturer sees that i'm ordering more britney posters, as is everyone else, what's he gonna make more posters of? is he gonna make more kinds of posters featuring britney or celine?
evolution is like that in reverse. the ones that don't sell stick around to breed, which is profitable.
When I am taught the major "proofs" for evolution, and then read "Icons of Evolution" that refute every single one of those proofs, I begin to question.
then read the refutation of the refutation: Icons of Evolution FAQs
When I read Behe's book I begin to question.
when i read behe's book, the first thing i found was logical flaws, such as jumping to conclusions and straw men. no, by behe's definition, eveolution cannot account for the systems he describes. but evolution is not what he defines it as. and even if the current model for evolution is not supported by his evidence,
Now you might say the origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution, I disagree. Evolution must be able to account for beginnings.
evolution is variation in alleles from one generation to the next. it does not attempt to account for how ANYTHING got where it is today.
"there is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process nor material phenomenon known that can do this."
define and quantify information.
And I've yet to read from another source a pathway for matter giving rise to information.
because thinking of animals and plants in terms of information is a creationist idea, designed to confuse people. it's obviously worked very well here. we can take a screen shot of solar static on a tv sometime, and play connect the dots at a microscopic level, if you want. or can i can find "hidden" information regarding the second coming of jesus in moby dick.
When I read about the cambrian explosion and how out of the blue many different body forms appear in animals without any kind of transitional form, I begin to question.
we have precambrian fossils, you know. it's NOT out of the blue. the fossils we have from right before the cambrian "explosion" look very similar to the cambrian fossils, minus hard shells.
it's an artifact of the process of fossilaztion. simple life with no hard parts do not fossilize very well. it's no suprise that we don't have very many organisms from before the point when hard parts developed. this doesn't refute evolution in the slightest.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-17-2004 07:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jjburklo, posted 11-17-2004 3:36 PM jjburklo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jjburklo, posted 12-11-2004 12:25 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 33 (167095)
12-11-2004 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by arachnophilia
11-17-2004 7:38 PM


Re: evolving a better mousetrap.
I would like to talk to you one on one about a few of the comments you made. Obviously, this brings the thread off topic so I was hoping to take this to email?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2004 7:38 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by AdminNosy, posted 12-11-2004 1:46 AM jjburklo has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 33 of 33 (167119)
12-11-2004 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by jjburklo
12-11-2004 12:25 AM


Off topic email
The usual thing to do is to open another thread to carry on the off topic discussio.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jjburklo, posted 12-11-2004 12:25 AM jjburklo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024