|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Irreducible Complexity and TalkOrigins | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I just ordered Behe's book, I haven't read it yet so please no spoilers! I was reading a review on it and someone posted that IC (irreducible complexity) had been completely refuted on TalkOrigins.org. I simply had to read as much as I could. So here is what I found, and I present these questions to the knowledgeable partakers of the EvC. Thanks and much love. This is old stuff. At the Dover "ID" trial Behe admitted that there were no known IC mechanisms that could not be explained. There was a thread discussing the trial that had links to the transcripts and quotes from it. Also see (Dr) Ken Miller's website:http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html And Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments quote: How did the original IC system evolve? How did this arch form by natural processes:
quote: Is that a clue maybe?
Dr. Spetner suggests that there is a limit to the mutations of an organism based off "how many essential nucleotides it has in its active genome." [spetner 1998 Not by Chance! pg.81] Then he is telling you falsehoods. Mutations can add nucleotides so there is no limit. Every time the limit for the existing number of nucleotides is reached you can add another base pair and start again.
The odds, according to Dr. Spetner, are ... ... not likely to bear any relationship to reality. Especially when they are calculated by someone feeding you false information on how many possibilities there are ... Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Edward O. Wilson is quoted as saying,
quote:{The Diversity of Life 1992} So selection of some BRAND NEW traits involved compromise on some others. Is this a problem? If we consider this in the context of natural selection instead of artificial, then the selection FOR the trait will mean it has net benefit to the organism that compensates for the loss in the compromised element.
Let me set up the context. This is from Spetner's book Not by Chance! btw. If there is any mistakes, they are probably mine as I am summarizing his writing. I'll start with a direct quote from page 138.
quote: Start with this precept: The concept of information (increase\decrease\whatever) either does not apply to evolutionary systems OR the concept that it cannot increase is invalidated. http://EvC Forum: Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments -->EvC Forum: Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I guess I'm just not getting the whole ID thing. What is the criteria for 'looking designed'? It's the argument from incredulity (a logical fallacy):
Coupled with the "all {A} is {B} ... {B}!!! ... therefore {A}" logical fallacy:
IDians ("ID christians" - in case there is any other kind) pride themselves on their grasp of logic. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : i we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Is that why the straw man argument is so common?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and a relativistic welcome for me, wall-on-the-fly,
This whole idea of finding design in Mt Rushmore is a bit silly. Actually we can use this argument as a basis for another: if we can determine design solely from the object with no context, then we should be able to detect design where we don't know whether there was a designer or not. Thus we should be able to develop a technique that can distinguish the design of DNA and test it with known modified plants and animals and bacteria. Enjoy. ps - if you haven't figured it out yet, type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. Edited by RAZD, : . we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
For example, say we found a glowing green mouse running around the house, and it has the gene for green fluorescent protein (GFP) identical to that found in aequorea. We might reasonably infer that it was genetically modified by having the GFP gene inserted into its genome, since no mice are naturally found with this gene and the technique is well known. However, we can't say the same thing about the jellyfish, since we have no experience of divine hands inserting genes into organisms in the wild. Exactly, and this also talks to ONE well known element of design when done by humans -- horizontal transfer into different lineages. One car gets a feature that is popular and next year all similar cars have that feature. Good design is spread across "species" suddenly in a manner that would disrupt phylogenetic trees. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Couldn't what you are calling "similar" in cars correlate to "species" in life forms? Hence no spreading across species? Doesn't matter. Change is also not taken from one individual and then inserted into another, or retrofitted, the way it can be with human designed cars (options for radios for instance). The point is that in known design we see this transfer occur horizontally from first development in one instance to other design lineages that have no previous developmental record of that design. We do NOT see any such design transfer from one species (or variety) where it first occurred horizontally (ie not by hereditary descent) from that first development into other species (or varieties)that have no previous developmental record of that design. There is no copying of design without heredity and common descent. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Horizontal gene transfer would be one way design was transfered from one hereditary lineage {A} to another {B} without the second needing to evolve the trait.
To qualify as a design transfer you would need to show that it resulted in the same trait in lineage {B} as occurred in {A} at the level of the phenotype, ie - it would need to be expressed. Thus a horizontal transfer of the genetics necessary for a flagellum to appear in a previously non-flagellum species would qualify. The question is: is there a mechanism for ID to operate? I'd say there are a number of mechanisms that could be possibilities (mosquitos, germs, cancers, etc), but none of them show use. And if we can only demonstrate such transferal in bacteria and the like, then that will tell us where the designer is interested ... Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024