Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,150 Year: 5,407/9,624 Month: 432/323 Week: 72/204 Day: 14/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do we tell the difference, Ahmad?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 63 (25468)
12-04-2002 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Ahmad
12-03-2002 11:20 AM


Schraf, Ahmad, this is a reply to Ahmad from "IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont.." that basically runs parallel to this one. So it made sense to post the reply here rather than make Ahmad repeat himself.
Ahmad,
quote:
Mark:
Data that positively shows that IC systems can’t evolve.
quote:
Ahmad:
I gave you the data with examples.
No you didn’t, Ahmad. Not at all. Not for what I asked, anyway.
quote:
The eamples I have provided previously serve as the evidence of the non-evolvablility of such systems. If you can show how they evolve, then fine and dandy with me. You're on denial no matter how many evidence is given..
Well, I must have missed it. Please could you cut n’ paste your best evidence that POSITIVELY shows the non-evolvability of IC systems. When doing so, please avoid the arguments from definition, unbacked assertions, & arguments from incredulity. All you have done is show me complex things & basically told me, there, it’s IC & it COULDN’T have evolved. This is not positive evidence. All you have given me fall into the above categories. Care to try again?
Do you understand the difference between positive & negative evidence? Positive evidence is not defined as there, that’s good evidence, I’m positive! It provides a testable observation in support of a contention, again, nothing you have provided has. That complex thing is too complex & IC to evolve is not a testable observation that supports your contention, it is an assertion. Your contention is that IC cannot evolve, so, the testable observation that it can't please.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Ahmad, posted 12-03-2002 11:20 AM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Ahmad, posted 12-09-2002 12:18 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 63 (26041)
12-09-2002 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Ahmad
12-09-2002 12:18 PM


Ahmad,
quote:
I really don't understand why you're on denial whilst I gave you what was in my capacity. I have given you evidence, in the form of examples (flagella), and explained in detail (with the GIF image) how all the components are needed for it to function. That, as I see it, is unevolvable by the darwinian evolution. If you disagree, then I would ask you to provide YOUR evidence. But since, you constantly say I made the claim of the unevolvability of IC and you didn't do nothing, I gave the evidence that I think is more than enough.
This is getting frustrating. That you can’t see how a flagellum can’t evolve is not positive evidence. Have I denied that the flagellum ceases to function if a part is removed? You are conflating two things, Behe’s claim that IC exists, & that it therefore cannot evolve. I have no problem with the former. There is no evidence of the latter.
quote:
Since I don't understand your definition of positive evidence, I would like you to give me a positive evidence for evolution. That won't be part of the discussion ofcourse, but just so that I can get a glimpse of what exactly is the kind of positive evidence you're talking about.
Positive evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs is seen in the fossils of archaeopteryx, as predicted, it shares traits unique to both therapod reptiles & extant birds, & appears at the appropriate time in the fossil record.
This evidence provides a testable observation that supports a contention. It is positive evidence. That’s not to say that birds evolved from dinosaurs is absolutely, positively an incontrovertible fact, but that the hypothesis has positive evidence in its favour.
quote:
Mark:
Do you understand the difference between positive & negative evidence? Positive evidence is not defined as there, that’s good evidence, I’m positive! It provides a testable observation in support of a contention, again, nothing you have provided has. That complex thing is too complex & IC to evolve is not a testable observation that supports your contention, it is an assertion. Your contention is that IC cannot evolve, so, the testable observation that it can't please.
quote:
Ahmad: The positive evidence I provided previously is TESTABLE. The conclusion that a system is IC depends on its very definition. Evidence are in the examples provided.
Evidence for the existence of IC systems, not they couldn't evolve. IC I accept, but I see no positive, testable evidence that they cannot evolve, however. This is what I’ve been after all along.
I repeat:
Please could you cut n’ paste your best evidence that POSITIVELY shows the non-evolvability of IC systems. When doing so, please avoid the arguments from definition, unbacked assertions, & arguments from incredulity. All you have done is show me complex things & basically told me, there, it’s IC & it COULDN’T have evolved. This is not positive evidence. All you have given me fall into the above categories. Care to try again?
If I could just pre-empt you asking me for evidence that IC can evolve. "I have never claimed that IC systems evolved. There is only one person making a positive assertion regarding IC, & that’s you. If you think I’m making it up, take a look back through the posts & see if you can find me making an explicit claim that IC definitely evolved (in context). Given that this is the case, that you are making a claim & I'm not, it is for you to back up said claim."
Even if I had claimed that IC has evolved, you would still be making a logical fallacy; argumentum ad ignorantiam. Because evolution of IC systems hasn't been proven, therefore the contention that they did evolve is false.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Ahmad, posted 12-09-2002 12:18 PM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 12-15-2002 7:37 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 14 by Ahmad, posted 12-18-2002 1:00 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 13 of 63 (26673)
12-15-2002 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mark24
12-09-2002 2:03 PM


Bumpity bump...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 12-09-2002 2:03 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 16 of 63 (27264)
12-18-2002 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Ahmad
12-18-2002 1:00 PM


quote:
Positive evidence for IC is seen in the bacterial flagella, where all the components of the flagella are needed to make it perform its function, i.e, locomotion of the bacteria and it appears at the exact place where it is needed by the bacteria.
Ahmad,
I know, & I accept this, if we are defining IC as a system that fails if one component is removed. I have always accepted it, it has never been in contention.
This is an extremely weak response, given I accepted IC's existence in the post 11 (among others). This is not what is being asked of you.
You have asked what positive evidence was, as well as an example. You know what it is, since you have correctly used the concept. Now, please provide positive evidence that IC systems cannot evolve.
If you can do this, you will be the first.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Ahmad, posted 12-18-2002 1:00 PM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 6:38 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 41 by Ahmad, posted 12-27-2002 1:12 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 18 of 63 (27467)
12-20-2002 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by mark24
12-18-2002 7:06 PM


bump.....
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 12-18-2002 7:06 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 21 of 63 (27546)
12-20-2002 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by peter borger
12-20-2002 9:04 PM


Peter B,
quote:
PB: Designed systems can be recognised by (genetic) redundancies. Structures, cells and/or genes present in the organism/genome without selective constraint cannot be explained by evolutionism and point in the direction of design. As elaborated several times before genetic redundancies do not have an association with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies in general are sufficient to bring down evolutionism since they do not demonstrate a relationship with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies leave the evolutionary community with complete surprise and disbelief. Have a look here: (Nature - Not Found)
So, remember for the next time: GENETIC REDUNDANCIES ARE CLEARCUT EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN.
Well, that would be true if you can positively rule out other explanations. Can you? Remember, this is your assertion, no "well, explain it from an evolutionary POV" arguments please. Positively back up your claim that genetic redundancies ARE evidence of design, by way of ruling out evolution, & other explanations such as perpetual existance (Well if god can have existed forever, why not life, lurking in some backwater vacuum?)
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 9:04 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 10:26 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 24 of 63 (27580)
12-21-2002 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by peter borger
12-20-2002 10:26 PM


quote:
PB: In one of my first mails I claimed that I would bring doubt upon evolutionism and I did that. To free your mind. That was the goal. Mission accomplished.
But you didn't. You simply stopped posting to me. I still don't know how you can tell where the hot spots were on ancient DNA from extant DNA, among other things. You claimed I wasn't vringing anything new to the argument without actually substantively responding to the criticisms/questions. Why would I bring something new?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 10:26 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by peter borger, posted 12-21-2002 8:32 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 42 of 63 (27980)
12-27-2002 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Ahmad
12-27-2002 1:12 PM


Ahmad,
quote:
Mark: You have asked what positive evidence was, as well as an example. You know what it is, since you have correctly used the concept. Now, please provide positive evidence that IC systems cannot evolve.
quote:
Ahamad: My bad! I should have said: Positive evidence for the non-evolvability of IC is seen in the bacterial flagella, where all the components of the flagella are needed to make it perform its function, i.e, locomotion of the bacteria and it appears at the exact place where it is needed by the bacteria.
This still isn't positive evidence of non-evolvability of IC systems. Nothing is firmly established by your statement, other than the system fails if one part is removed. In short, you are still describing an IC system. That this is un-evolvable remains an argument from incredulity on your part.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Ahmad, posted 12-27-2002 1:12 PM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Ahmad, posted 12-27-2002 2:35 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 45 of 63 (27993)
12-27-2002 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Ahmad
12-27-2002 2:35 PM


Ahmad,
quote:
Right.. lets get back to your original example of "positive evidence" and do some comparing. You gave an example of birds evolving from dinosaurs and its fossil record as "positive evidence" for evolution. I gave you an example of the flagella present in bacteria as Irreducible and hence.. un-evolvable. If this is an argument from incredulity, then so is your "positive evidence".
A fossil form that has traits found ONLY in extant reptiles & birds is positive evidence of common descent from reptiles to birds BECAUSE, the evidence can be touched, tested, & measured, & is a prediction-come-true for the reptile bird hypothesis.
The flagella MIGHT have evolved, or it MIGHT have been designed, there is nothing to indicate which just by looking at the flagella. You are begging the question (a logical fallacy Page not found - Intrepid Software ) by making an argument that evidence for non-evolvable IC is an example of IC that couldn’t evolve (you have not shown the latter). As has been pointed out to you I-don’t-know-how-many-times, IC is not by definition un-evolvable. That is the contention. You appear to be claiming that because someone defined IC as being un-evolvable, it must be true, & we don't actually need to show it. WRONG! This is precisely what you NEED TO SHOW. Hence, showing me an IC system isn’t evidence of it’s non-evolvability. That will take more. I don’t have to tell you how an IC system evolves, it’s not my claim, it’s yours.
So tell me how an IC flagella presents positive evidence of its own un-evolvability? I know its IC, I don’t know it can’t evolve. Without making me go over the same stuff for a fourth time, please!
I’ll say it again. IC is NOT un-evolvable by definition. It is NOT good enough just to show me an IC system, because all you’ve shown me is an IC system, & not that it can’t evolve.
Therefore an IC system is not positive evidence that said IC system cannot evolve. Any claim that it is is an argument from incredulity, & an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Ahmad, posted 12-27-2002 2:35 PM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Ahmad, posted 12-28-2002 6:48 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 47 of 63 (28015)
12-28-2002 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Ahmad
12-28-2002 6:48 AM


Ahmad,
quote:
A bacterial flagella has traits classifiable to an Irreducibly complex system and is positive evidence for it's non-evolvability by darwinian mechanisms. The evidence is testable and falsifiable.
Oh good. How? No unbacked assertions now!
quote:
I call that "tossing". You were always on the contention that IC systems exist and they have evolved by darwinian mechanisms, and you have also cited some papers backing up your initial claim (to which you now seem to deny). I did make claims to which I have several times verified. Darwinian mechanisms cannot account for the origin of IC systems. Consider A -->B -->C...
I have never claimed IC systems evolved. in fact, I've challenged you to show that I have many posts ago. My argument all along has been that your argument should be able to stand by itself. But so what if I did? The argument is; can you support your contention that IC systems never evolved? not whether I can show that they did, regardless of your repeated efforts to switch the burden of proof.
quote:
As for petitio principii, I am not begging the question but the answer.
No, you are not, & you’ve done it several times, despite being shown the logical error. Please try to follow this line of reasoning. You claimed in your last post that:
quote:
Positive evidence for the non-evolvability of IC is seen in the bacterial flagella, where all the components of the flagella are needed to make it perform its function, i.e, locomotion of the bacteria and it appears at the exact place where it is needed by the bacteria.
For the logical fallacy begging the question to be committed, we must agree the conclusion is true in order to believe the premises are true. (Page not found - Intrepid Software)
Your premises are that the bacterial flagellum is IC, & cannot have evolved (which is why you present it as an example).
Your conclusion is that therefore IC systems cannot evolve (what else would you be arguing?)
But the premises are only true if you accept the conclusion. Therefore, the argument is fallacious. It is a CLASSIC case of begging the question.
THEREFORE, your argument is flawed & you haven’t presented positive evidence that IC cannot evolve.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-28-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Ahmad, posted 12-28-2002 6:48 AM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 11:14 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 49 by Ahmad, posted 12-30-2002 8:59 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 53 of 63 (28135)
12-30-2002 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Ahmad
12-30-2002 8:59 AM


Ahmad,
quote:
Ahmad: A bacterial flagella has traits classifiable to an Irreducibly complex system and is positive evidence for it's non-evolvability by darwinian mechanisms. The evidence is testable and falsifiable.
Mark: Oh good. How? No unbacked assertions now!
quote:
If it can be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes to create irreducibly complex systems when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam’s razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.
Please reread the question, I didn’t ask for testability of the concept that ID systems can evolve, but that they cannot. Certainly, finding an example that did evolve would falsify IC, but not finding one isn’t a test that they can’t evolve.
But, since you make the challenge.......
THE MAMMALIAN EAR
Malleus, incus, & stapes. Three bones which have to be in place in order to transmit sound from the ear drum. The functional whole (the three articulated bones) ceases to function as a whole when one bone is missing, that is, vibration cannot pass from the ear drum to the sensory organ, therefore, according to Behe it is irreducibly complex. Could such a thing evolve? Fossil evidence suggests it did.
Fig 1.4.1
quote:
Figure 1.4.1. The jaws of three vertebrates - mammal, therapsid, and pelycosaur. A side view of three idealized skulls of mammals, therapsids (mammal-like reptiles), and pelycosaurs (early reptiles). The figure shows the differences between mammal and reptilian jaws and ear-bone structures. The jaw joint is shown as a large black dot, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. Note how, in the reptile, the jaw joint is formed between the blue quadrate and the yellow articular (with the pink angular close by), and how, in the mammal, the jaw joint is formed between the squamosal above and the dentary below. In the reptile, the squamosal is just above and contacting the quadrate. Advanced therapsids have two jaw joints: a reptile-like joint and a mammal-like joint (Figure based on Kardong 2002, pp. 275, reproduced with permission from the publisher, Copyright 2002 McGraw-Hill)
In more detail, showing stratigraphy.
Fig 1.4.3
quote:
Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright 2002 McGraw-Hill)
So, a transitional series providing positive evidence of the evolution of the malleus, incus, & stapes in mammals, & at the same time, the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. This transition is corroborated with embryological data, showing the corresponding homologous bones that make reptilian jaw bones in foetuses, go to make the anvil & hammer in mammalian foetuses.
So, according to you I have falsified both IC & ID, by showing an IC system evolving!
quote:
Once again.. you're on denial. Don't tell me its not your contention that IC systems have "evolved".
I most certainly DO have a view as regards evolvability of IC, but I have never expressed it, nor have I a need to. Furthermore, my view is irrelevant to how valid your argument is. I could be playing devils advocate, what should it matter to the quality of your argument? I understand your frustration, but sorry, no dice, your argument stands or falls on the basis of the evidence supporting it, regardless of what I think.
quote:
Why then would you provide papers by thornhill and ussery showing the various imaginary darwinian pathways?
Actually, I didn’t, you linked ME to that article. Regardless, if I am required to provide a cite to counter your argument, I will do so.
quote:
I can support my contention and I did. You just don't accept it. You just want me to do the talking. You never provided any evidence for your latent claim of the evolvability of IC systems. I believe the burden of proof is now on you.
Burden of proof of what? I never said IC evolved, I am arguing that you can’t show that it didn’t. My position in this thread is very specific. It was a deliberate act on my part. Why? Because usually what people do is make the claim you have (that IC evolution is impossible), then expect to have a valid argument because I can’t provide evidence to the contrary, regardless of the lack of positive evidence provided by them/yourselves. In doing this I hoped you would avoid an argument from ignorance (your argument is true because I have no evidence to the contrary). But you seem quite dogged & determined to commit such a fallacy.
Since I have made no claim, there is no burden of proof to be placed upon me. You, however HAVE made a claim, & the burden of proof falls upon you to show positively that IC can’t evolve. Therefore, it IS you who have to do the talking, OK?
quote:
This is the line of reasoning I follow:
1. Bacterial flagella is an IC system
2. These systems are unexplainable (I haven't had a single valid explanation for the evolution of IC systems) by evolution.
3. Therefore IC systems are unevolvable.
Another logical fallacy! Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.( because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false.) See your points 2 & 3. There ARE plausible evolutionary pathways of IC structures, see the malleus, incus, & stapes, above, falsifying point 2 (an absolute), & therefore your conclusion, point 3.
quote:
Besides, using your own logic, I can say that the "dinobird" argument is flawed too.
Your premises are that fossil record has organisms with traits of both birds and dinos.
Your conclusion is the birds evolved from dinos.
I say thats one "classic" case, too, of question-begging.
Incorrect. You do not have to accept that birds evolved from dinos to accept that the fossil record has examples of organisms that possess traits of both reptiles & birds, hence, no begging the question occurs, hence, no logical fallacy has been committed, hence, the argument is valid.
So, I’m still waiting for positive evidence that isn’t logically flawed, of the impossibility of IC systems to evolve.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Ahmad, posted 12-30-2002 8:59 AM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Ahmad, posted 01-02-2003 8:28 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 54 of 63 (28139)
12-30-2002 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Mr. Davies
12-30-2002 12:31 PM


Mr Davies,
quote:
There is no such thing as an IC system. To say that anything is IC would automatically preclude it from havinf evolved. One of the biggest fallacies is that anny biological system comes into existance fully formed and fully functional. That is not the case. Evolution is more an example of ad hoc and jury rigged systems.
It depends how you define IC,
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Behe)"
Even Behe's definition doesn't implicitly state that IC = non-evolvable. Ahmad & I agree on a general definition, that IC is a system that fails if one part is removed. As such, your eye is IC if you remove the retina, or your leg is IC, since it fails to function if the femur is removed. It is NOT implicit that those structures couldn't have evolved, however, despite what creationists think. If they are going to make that claim, they must show it. This is what Ahmad has done, & why I'm trying to make him show that IC = non-evolvable with positive evidence.
quote:
I would say that is not an IC system. Why does it exist? It gives the organism an advantage into moving around and about.
The flagellum is IC by the above definition, since removing one part renders the original function useless. But it's un-evolvability from other structures is by no means certain.
.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-30-2002 12:31 PM Mr. Davies has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 59 of 63 (28329)
01-02-2003 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Zhimbo
01-02-2003 2:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Zhimbo:
quote:
"I don't understand your question. As I see it, you have bacterial flagella that is IC and it can't evolve, given the darwinian evolution as the evolver."
Again, you ASSERT that IC means Darwinism can't work. That's not good enough. How do you TEST this ASSERTION?
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 01-02-2003]

Zhimbo, you sum up the very crux of the argument. It is circular. The premise in support of "IC cannot evolve", is "bacterial flagella is IC, & cannot evolve". The conclusion is "therefore IC cannot evolve". But you cannot accept the premise without knowing the conclusion is true. Circular argument.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Zhimbo, posted 01-02-2003 2:00 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 60 of 63 (28330)
01-02-2003 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Ahmad
01-02-2003 8:28 AM


Ahmad,
quote:
I don't understand your question. As I see it, you have bacterial flagella that is IC and it can't evolve, given the darwinian evolution as the evolver.
The point of this thread is THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW, & HAVE BEEN UTTERLY UNABLE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM THAT IT DIDN’T!! The logical flaw in your reasoning has been pointed out to you, it is begging the question, ergo, a circular argument. The conclusion has to be true for you to accept the premise that an IC flagella cannot evolve.
THE ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY INVALID.
I don’t write the rules. If you wish to rewrite what constitutes a logically fallacious argument maybe you should try elsewhere.
quote:
The mammalian ear is at the phenotypical level, thus at this level alone it is irrelevant to the irreducible complexity of molecular machines. Also, the mammalian inner ear is not irreducibly complex. Thus showing a pathway to this system is doubly irrelevant.
Behe defines IC as:
"By Irreducibly Complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts cause the system to effectively cease functioning."
Where does it say IC cannot be present at the phenotypic level? It doesn’t, not at all. For the record, the flagellum itself is at the phenotypic level. Nor must IC be present at the molecular level only. A strawman.
Secondly, I NEVER said the mammalian ear was IC, but that the functional unit consisting of the malleus, incus, & stapes that transmits vibration from the tympanic membrane to the inner ear is IC. If you remove one element, the unit fails.
It is irreducibly complex by anyones definition. No more personal caveats & strawmen, please!
Now, please address the implications of this.
quote:
You are entitled to your views and it's expression. Playing devil's advocate won't really do you any good, now will it? You have a mindset. No matter how much evidence I give you, it seems as though, you'll never accept it. It's better to do the research yourself.
As regards to frustration... I really am not frustrated. I try to make it a learning experience.
Your arguments are logically fallacious, therefore you have no valid evidence, should it be based upon such arguments, which it is.
quote:
You don't understand the argument I raised. In order to declare something as impossible and provide positive evidence for it's impossibility, the known possibilities of that "something" to be possible must be dealt with first. In order to declare the evolvability of IC as impossible and to satisfy your contention by providing positive evidence for it's impossibility, you should at least provide me some chances (pathways) of it's possibility.
I have to provide you N_O_T_H_I_N_G. You seem to think that in order to produce a valid argument I have to provide you with 1/ something to argue against, & 2/ information. I don’t have to provide either.
quote:
I really don't see how it can evolve. All the data of the bacterial flagella is so highly unlikely (irreducibly complex) to coincide with the darwinian evolution. And this very specified complexity, shows the sign of an intelligent design.
Argument from incredulity, another fallacy. Full circle.
quote:
Mark:Another logical fallacy! Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.( because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false.)
quote:
That's a misconception.
It isn’t a misconception. Let me remind you of your statement:
quote:
This is the line of reasoning I follow:
1. Bacterial flagella is an IC system
2. These systems are unexplainable (I haven't had a single valid explanation for the evolution of IC systems) by evolution.
3. Therefore IC systems are unevolvable.
You have claimed that because something is unexplainable, it is false. Or because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false. This is a classic, textbook, case of argument from ignorance.
I don’t care what you, Dembski, or Behe think of this, the argument fulfils the conditions to be logically fallacious. Period. No amount of hand waving will make it not true. As a result of this, your argument is rendered invalid.
quote:
So what is your point when you say that "the fossil record has examples of organisms that possess traits of both reptiles & birds,"? What are the alternative conclusions drawn from it?
Couldn’t give a toss, as far as this argument is concerned. A hypothesis makes predictions, & testable evidence that supports that hypothesis is positive evidence. You have no evidence that isn’t fallacious. Positive evidence does not necessarily = truth. This is how science works, Ahmed, I thought you were studying science? Show me an electron.
quote:
Mark: So, I’m still waiting for positive evidence that isn’t logically flawed, of the impossibility of IC systems to evolve.
quote:
Ahmad: And I am still waiting for it's lightest shred of possibility.
Well, the ear bones still stand, since no one said IC had to be molecular, just a functional system that fails if an element is removed.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-08-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Ahmad, posted 01-02-2003 8:28 AM Ahmad has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 63 of 63 (28611)
01-07-2003 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Ahmad
01-02-2003 8:28 AM


bump.....
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Ahmad, posted 01-02-2003 8:28 AM Ahmad 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