Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe on organismal evolution
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 57 (148913)
10-10-2004 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by JasonChin
10-10-2004 5:24 AM


That's a terrible analogy, because stone archs are the product of intelligent design........
Not the ones we're talking about. You think that maybe little invisible men carved this one out?
Or this one?
Or this one?
It's a great analogy, because there's so many IC bridges that are the result of nothing more than natural processes of erosion.
Therefore, I don't see how anyone can whole heartedly support the idea that certain components of an IC system just HAPPENED to evolve side by side.
We don't. We assert that they were retasked from other systems. The reason we assert this is because it is proven by observation and experimentation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by JasonChin, posted 10-10-2004 5:24 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 57 (149145)
10-11-2004 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by JasonChin
10-09-2004 4:17 AM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
quote:
So, in order to believe that the flagellum evolved, you have to believe that each of its components just happened to evolve independantly and side by side, AND that every time one component of the system combined with another component it coincidentally created yet another subsystem with selection effects all its own.
What is so hard to believe? Mutations are capable of changing binding capacities. Natural selection is capable of passing on the best binding capacities to further generations. Therefore, bacteria can come upon a useful protein by chance and that chance mutation then becomes dominant in the population. Everything in this scenario is well within the realm of mutation, and well within the capabilities of natural selection. The outcome could have been different, which is made obvious by the difference in eubacterial and archaebacterial flagella.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by JasonChin, posted 10-09-2004 4:17 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 48 of 57 (150094)
10-15-2004 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Loudmouth
10-07-2004 5:46 PM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
inform us of what?
my "problem" arises if one intends this" what" to be a *change* in total morphospace. The thing is that no matter the fossils in the history of biology AND c/e (as to recording "evolution") is irrelevant if one's subjective extent of morphospace is not comprehended but instead people think instead that there are temporal adjustments rather than database warehousing involved in the same describitve attributions.
So it does make a bit of a difference what you EXPECT the FORM to be even if ONE accepts whatever the forms made are what was made during the duration of form-making (by nature not man).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Loudmouth, posted 10-07-2004 5:46 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 49 of 57 (151370)
10-20-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by JasonChin
10-09-2004 4:17 AM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
Hello JasonChin
In one of your posts you make the following statement:
JasonChin writes:
His argument isn't that we don't know, therefore God did it......his argument is that we CAN'T know, therefore God did it.
I guess my question would be: Do you agree with his argument? Do you agree that we can’t know, therefore we will never know, therefore we should stop looking, therefore God did it? I hope not. For example, to say that the odds of the eye evolving are too low, therefore God had to do it, is a complete and utter mistake. To suggest that we should therefore stop looking for a scientific explanation is why Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design are both non-sciences.
In another post you state:
JasonChin writes:
I've heard Behe reference teams of mathematicians who have done studies which show that IC systems evolving would be mathematically highly improbable.........
UmmmI’m not too sure how to respond here. I get the impression, however, that you seem to equate highly improbable with impossible. And this is often times accompanied by a lack of understanding of both statistics and the ToE, which I also think is likely in your case, based on statements like the following:
JasonChin writes:
So, in order to believe that the flagellum evolved, you have to believe that each of its components just happened to evolve independantly and side by side, AND that every time one component of the system combined with another component it coincidentally created yet another subsystem with selection effects all its own.
This implies to me that you believe that evolution has some sort of goal or purpose. That you, for example, ascribe to the notion that euglena wanted to become mobile, so they evolved flagellathat birds wanted to fly, so they evolved wings that humans wanted to open doors, so they evolved opposing thumbs
Evolution does not work that way. It has no goal and it has no purpose. I think that this is perhaps the most difficult concept for many people to embrace. Euglena did not want to become mobile, so they decided to evolve a flagellum. Rather, flagella evolved, which allowed for motility. Birds did not evolve wings so they could fly, they can fly because wings did evolve. I realize that these examples are way oversimplified, but I only want to use them to get across my earlier point, which is that things simply evolve, and that organisms don’t evolve structures they think they may want or think they may need in the future.
And as far as arguing against evolution on the grounds of probabilities, well it’s incorrect. You’re looking at it from the wrong direction. You’re seeing what we already have, and then calculating the probabilities of that having occurred. You can’t do that. The probability of an event occurring once it has occurred is 100 percent. Let me see if I can straighten you out on this one as well.
Picture yourself inside a basketball. Assume you are located in the exact center of the ball, and are held there so you can only spin in place, not move away from the center point. Ok so far? Let’s say that I do indeed set you spinning in some random fashion, that you also have a laser with you, and that at some point in the future I will tell you to fire the laser. The beam of light will travel outwards towards the basketball cover and will strike one of those dimples. Let’s further assume that each of those dimples represents a possible mutation. Now, can you predict which mutation (dimple) will be chosen when you fire the laser? Of course not, but you can calculate the odds of any individual mutation being the one that is hit by the beam of lightcorrect? What if the ball had 1000 dimples on it? Well the odds for each dimple would then be 1000 to 1 against being the chosen one (so to speak). What if there were 1,000,000 possible mutations (dimples) to choose from? What if there were 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 mutations (and by the way, I only chose a basketball because I assume you know what one looks like. Don’t start going off on how the beam may hit a seam on the ball, or may miss a dimplethat’s not the point)? As the number of possible mutations increases, the odds for any single mutation being chosen gets proportionally smaller. What does not decrease, however, is the odds that any mutation will be chosen. It is a 100 percent certainty when there are 1000 mutations, and it is still %100 when there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 mutations from which to choose. Try to think of biological systems and the ToE in a similar manner. We have eyes because that's what was chosen way back when, not because we wanted them. In other words, if it weren’t eyes that we got through evolution, then it would be something else. Who knowsmaybe the dimple on the basketball next to the eye dimple was telepathy. Damn that God for giving use something as crappy as vision when we could have had telepathy instead!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by JasonChin, posted 10-09-2004 4:17 AM JasonChin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Wounded King, posted 10-20-2004 1:38 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 50 of 57 (151378)
10-20-2004 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by FliesOnly
10-20-2004 1:14 PM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
I fear Jason has been restricted to the 'Boot Camp' forum for the moment. Maybe you could open a side thread there on this topic, but from the look of it he wont be posting on the main forums any time in the near future.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by FliesOnly, posted 10-20-2004 1:14 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2004 1:48 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 52 by FliesOnly, posted 10-20-2004 3:16 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 51 of 57 (151387)
10-20-2004 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Wounded King
10-20-2004 1:38 PM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
As predicted Message 44
Is this one for the prophecy threads :-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Wounded King, posted 10-20-2004 1:38 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 52 of 57 (151406)
10-20-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Wounded King
10-20-2004 1:38 PM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
WoundedKing:
Thanks...I see that now. Kind of a bummer that I wasted a post...but such is life. Um, how would I go about "bumping" this post into boot camp and/or starting a new thread there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Wounded King, posted 10-20-2004 1:38 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AdminAsgara, posted 10-20-2004 4:03 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 53 of 57 (151418)
10-20-2004 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by FliesOnly
10-20-2004 3:16 PM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
Hi Flies, Any member can propose that their new thread be taken to a particular forum. If you wish to propose a new topic and ask that it be taken to the Boot Camp, I'm sure that will be taken care of.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe


http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by FliesOnly, posted 10-20-2004 3:16 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 54 of 57 (151673)
10-21-2004 3:15 PM


Thread moved here from the Intelligent Design forum.

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 55 of 57 (151695)
10-21-2004 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by JasonChin
10-09-2004 4:17 AM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
This post is a copy of the original from the Behepost. It didn’t seem to transfer over.
Hello JasonChin,
In one of your posts you make the following statement:
JasonChin writes:
His argument isn't that we don't know, therefore God did it......his argument is that we CAN'T know, therefore God did it.
I guess my question would be: Do you agree with his argument? Do you agree that we can’t know, therefore we will never know, therefore we should stop looking, therefore God did it? I hope not. For example, to say that the odds of the eye evolving are too low, therefore God had to do it, is a complete and utter mistake. To suggest that we should therefore stop looking for a scientific explanation is why Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design are both non-sciences.
In another post you state:
JasonChin writes:
I've heard Behe reference teams of mathematicians who have done studies which show that IC systems evolving would be mathematically highly improbable.........
UmmmI’m not too sure how to respond here. I get the impression, however, that you seem to equate highly improbable with impossible. And this is often times accompanied by a lack of understanding of both statistics and the ToE, which I also think is likely in your case, based on statements like the following:
JasonChin writes:
So, in order to believe that the flagellum evolved, you have to believe that each of its components just happened to evolve independantly and side by side, AND that every time one component of the system combined with another component it coincidentally created yet another subsystem with selection effects all its own.
This implies to me that you believe that evolution has some sort of goal or purpose. That you, for example, ascribe to the notion that euglena wanted to become mobile, so they evolved flagellathat birds wanted to fly, so they evolved wings that humans wanted to open doors, so they evolved opposing thumbs
Evolution does not work that way. It has no goal and it has no purpose. I think that this is perhaps the most difficult concept for many people to embrace. Euglena did not want to become mobile, so they decided to evolve a flagellum. Rather, flagella evolved, which allowed for motility. Birds did not evolve wings so they could fly, they can fly because wings did evolve. I realize that these examples are way oversimplified, but I only want to use them to get across my earlier point, which is the things simply evolve, and that organisms don’t evolve structures they think they may want or think they may need in the future.
And as far as arguing against evolution on the grounds of probabilities, well it’s incorrect. You’re looking at from the wrong direction. You’re seeing what we already have, and then calculating the probabilities of that having occurred. You can’t do that. The probability of an event occurring once it has occurred is 100 percent. Let me see if I can straighten you out on this one as well.
Picture yourself inside a basketball. Assume you are located in the exact center of the ball, and are held there so you can only spin in place, not move away from the center point. Ok so far? Let’s say that I do indeed set you spinning in some random fashion, that you also have a laser with you, and that at some point in the future I will tell you to fire the laser. The beam of light will travel outwards towards the basketball cover and will strike one of those dimples. Let’s further assume that each of those dimples represents a possible mutation. Now, can you predict which mutation (dimple) will be chosen when you fire the laser? Of course not, but you can calculate the odds of any individual mutation being the one that is hit by the beam of lightcorrect? What if the ball had 1000 dimples on it? Well the odds for each dimple would then be 1000 to 1 against being the chosen one (so to speak). What if there were 1,000,000 possible mutations (dimples) to choose from? What if there were 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 mutations (and by the way, I only chose a basketball because I assume you know what one looks like. Don’t start going off on how the bean way hit a seam on the ball, or may miss a dimplethat’s not the point)? As the number of possible mutations increases, the odds for any single mutation being chosen gets proportionally smaller. What does not decrease, however, is the odds that any mutation will be chosen. It is a %100 percent certainty when there are 1000 mutations, and it is still %100 when there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 mutations to choose. Try to think of biological systems and the ToE in a similar manner. We have eyes because they evolved, not because we wanted them. In other words, what I’m trying to say is that if it weren’t eyes that we got through evolution, then it would be something else. Who knowsmaybe the dimple on the basketball next to the eye dimple was telepathy. Damn that God for giving use something as crappy as vision when we could have had telepathy instead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by JasonChin, posted 10-09-2004 4:17 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 56 of 57 (285678)
02-10-2006 3:52 PM


Too good of a topic to be left in "Limbo" forum
Thread moved here from the Limbo forum.
Just after I clicked the button to move this topic back to "Intelligent Design", I realized I might as well just reopen the original topic. Alas, it was too late.
Adminnemooseus
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-10-2006 03:56 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-12-2006 4:31 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 57 of 57 (285988)
02-12-2006 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Adminnemooseus
02-10-2006 3:52 PM


Re: Too good of a topic to be left in "Limbo" forum - Bump
Michael Behe continues to come up in other topics. I'm pushing this topic as a place to focus in on things Behe.
Please supply links back to other topics as seems appropriate.
Adminnemooseus
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-12-2006 04:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-10-2006 3:52 PM Adminnemooseus 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