|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
slevesque writes: But, the scaffold can both support the incomplete arch and allow for travel across the canyon, at the same time. The purpose of the scaffold is to do both. That's how an incomplete arch can "evolve" step-by-step; on top of something that provides the same function, only not as well. (Scaffolds aren't as strong as stone arch bridges.) Then it comes down to the same thing. Randomness does not know the arch it is building will be advantageous once it is finished. It doesn't know that the arch it is building, although useless and a waste of material right now, will be better then the scaffolds it has right now. This situation still requires foresight, or random luck More utter nonsense. There is NO such thing as foresight in biology. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
In biological systems, 'steps' are simply mutations. To evolve IC systems, you need to have multiple simultaneous mutations. Nowhere have you shown that this is true. You have simply asserted it. We need evidence before we can proceed.
If you doubt this, consider that all researches that try to find a mechanism to evolve such systems approach it by trying to find a mechanism in which multiple simultaneous mutations will become visible to selection.
Now would be that time. If you have the research to back it up then present it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
It is not a necessity that I identify a specific designer, it would be better I guess, but in no way does it negate the argument.
No designer = no design.
Well, ''the argument is lame'' isn't an argument. First because it is subjective (someone might find it astonishing) and second because you phrased your boiled down version of it to fit your need to see it as 'lame' ... If you break something it doesn't work, therefore design. It certainly isn't compelling evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Randomness does not know the arch it is building will be advantageous once it is finished. It doesn't have to.
It doesn't know that the arch it is building, although useless and a waste of material right now, will be better then the scaffolds it has right now. It doesn't have to.
This situation still requires foresight, or random luck No, it doesn't. It just requires piles of rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In biological systems, 'steps' are simply mutations. To evolve IC systems, you need to have multiple simultaneous mutations. If you doubt this, consider that all researches that try to find a mechanism to evolve such systems approach it by trying to find a mechanism in which multiple simultaneous mutations will become visible to selection. That would be worthier of consideration if it was remotely true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Does the arch have a function while it is being built in your analogy ? Or does it only acquire a function when it is finished ? If so, then it still requires the foresight of intelligence to aim towards that final functioning state even though in the meantime it serves no purpose. Behe certainly thinks the idea of multiple simulteneous mutations creating IC systems to be the biggest argument against his, since it is the main point of his last book to investigate this possibility. Has it not occurred to you that perhaps he is fighting a strawman, and is "investigating" this possibility not because it's the biggest argument against him, but the weakest? The obvious answer to Behe, which he has not to my knowledge tackled, is to point out that to show that something is irreducibly complex is to show that it couldn't have been produced by the last part of it popping into existence out of nothing. But this is not what evolutionists claim to have happened in the first place. As Behe admitted: "There is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection". Now we can see in the fossil record the evolution of something that is indubitably irreducibly complex --- the bones of the mammalian middle ear. This process did not involve the malleus, incus, or stapes poofing into existence, but a gradual modification of their forms and their relationships to each other and to other bones. Now gradual modification is, you must admit, more evolutionary than poofing, or indeed the occurrence of simultaneous well-coordinated mutations, so maybe Behe could discuss that instead.
essentially, they propose a mechanism where mutations can neutraly accumulate in a gene, and then be 'revealed' all at once for selection, hopefully giving a worthwhile result that will be selected for. Where do they say that this has anything to do with simultaneous mutations independently conspiring to form a biological system; or that it has anything to do with irreducible complexity; or that they've even heard of Behe's ideas?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drevmar Junior Member (Idle past 4762 days) Posts: 24 From: Spokane, WA, USA Joined: |
Yep, knew all that, thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drevmar Junior Member (Idle past 4762 days) Posts: 24 From: Spokane, WA, USA Joined: |
I accomplished my objective in my post. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hi Drevmar,
Yep, knew all that, thanks. What? You knew that there was overwhelming evidence for macroevolution? But you still said that it could not occur. Why that is strange, because that would make you a contemptible liar. Is that what you are Drevmar? And you knew that there were countless Christian scientists who support evolution? But you still wrote as if scientists were all godless infidels? That, again, would make you a pathetic and disgusting liar. I guess that's what you must be. A liar for Jesus. Another one. Because Jesus loved liars. Bottom line; this is not a place for you to proselytise or make unchallenged statements of faith. This is a discussion board. If you are unwilling to discuss what you post, then don't post it. If all you are interested in doing is telling moronic lies that make you (and, by association, Christianity in general) look foolish, without defending those positions in discussion, then this forum may not be the place for you. On the other hand, if you decide to grow up and you think that your positions are defensible, you might try to engage in adult discussion. Y'know, like a grown up person. Instead of a childish liar. Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Off-topic question: How *old* is that boat, and what's that big, bulbous thing on the front behind the bow gun?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
It's just like ink on paper. Sure there are physical itneractions between the ink and the paper, and this is why the molecules stay there etc. But the disposition of the molecules were arbitrary, and if a given disposition (a letter) carries any more information then another (a scribble) is strictly because we have all established an arbitrary code in which we decide that such a pattern means such and such, and that other pattern means nothing. It's not like ink on paper. You could - at a push - perhaps argue it's like electrons in a processor. Ink on paper produces no direct effects anywhere; photons bounce off it and we, eventually, decode those into meaning. DNA interacts chemically and physically with proteins and RNA.
Coded information only exists if their is a semantic aspect to it, without any code it has no information at all. Thinking of genetics as information, especially information without a strict formal definition, is rarely useful.
It is the same thing with DNA. Somewhere along the line from none-life to life, a code was established either via randomness, via an as-of-yet-unknown natural process, or via an intelligent being. But it wasn't because of any particular physical interaction. With the proteins it seems to be different. It has information strictly because 'the key physically fits the hole', and this information comes from a real physical basis. No, it's not different. The DNA interacts with other molecules. That interaction produces changes in the surrounding environment. It's physical all the way down. The encoding in DNA is semantically flexible, as we analyse it, but in the cell the exact same chemical processes that drive protein-protein, protein-lipid or protein-ion interactions are involved in protein-DNA interactions. No special explanation is required for DNA interactions that is not required for protein-protein interactions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Drevmar writes: I accomplished my objective in my post. Thanks. I'm glad. Perhaps you could enlighten us then on just what your objective was?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: Off-topic question: How *old* is that boat, and what's that big, bulbous thing on the front behind the bow gun? --Percy Looks like one of the Arleigh Burke but could be an older Kidd. And likely phased array radar? Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
jar writes:
I'm glad. Perhaps you could enlighten us then on just what your objective was? Please. Don't encourage Drev to post any further in the same vein.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 89 Joined:
|
No, it's not different. The DNA interacts with other molecules. That interaction produces changes in the surrounding environment. It's physical all the way down. The encoding in DNA is semantically flexible, as we analyse it, but in the cell the exact same chemical processes that drive protein-protein, protein-lipid or protein-ion interactions are involved in protein-DNA interactions. No special explanation is required for DNA interactions that is not required for protein-protein interactions. So are you saying that the nucleotides have an affinity to each other or Condons to each other or the amino acids to each other. How do you explain that different condons code for the same amino acid? Seems as though it is like different words with the same meaning. They have no meaning outside of the code. At the point of translation the processes is informational. Or in other words it is the code that gives them meaning not chemical properties of the DNA. Edited by havoc, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024