|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
quote: Wrong in many aspects, huh? Pray, continue.
quote: quote: quote: You're speaking in riddles man. An IC system is by definition unevolvable....unless proven otherwise?. How do you disprove a definitional proof?? So, it can't be IC if it evolves? Whats all this unless proven otherwise malarkey? So you are saying you've got examples of systems that look to you to be IC? So what? All you've done is add a new term: "IC" and given it a bizarre definition. You haven't demonstrated anything. Lets take an example. Monstrously Ossified systems can only have arisen through evolution. You make the claim that a system is not MO, therefore you have to prove that everything didn't evolve? Or another....Burgeoning Wing Clump systems have only three invisible antennae, undetectable to all instruments. YOU make the assertion that BWC systems don't exist - YOU prove that all systems aren't BWC (including fauna ). I could go on This was your response to why IC wasn't GotG: Part 1: The Phantom Gap
quote: Strange thing to say. How are you measuring gap counts here? Sounds more like a personal prejudice to me. Part 2: Return of the Behe
quote: If Behe has information proving that it is impossible for certain systems to have evolved then you should share it with us. Otherwise you're just saying goddidit, aren't you? PE ------------------It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. - Bertrand Russell [This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 11-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Oop. Wrong person, soz Edge.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
[I moved this response so as to "reply" to Ahmad, & not edge]
Ahmad, Regarding IC: I’m claiming victory, as I said I would in the last post if you yet again failed to produce positive evidence to back up your claim. I have asked & asked & asked for this positive evidence that IC cannot evolve. You have provided nothing of the kind. Your argument seems to be that I have to show otherwise, or you’re right. I don’t, & you’re not. It’s your claim, I’m not making one. If you can’t provide positive evidence to back that claim up, then you have an argument from incredulity, like I said all along. http://EvC Forum: NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation -->EvC Forum: NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation This was the first mention of IC in this thread, & YOU claim it refutes evolution.
quote: All subsequent discussion has been about asking you to back up that claim that IC can’t evolve, & that IC does, in fact, refute evolution. If you can’t show that IC can’t evolve, you don’t have an argument. Read & reread this next paragraph until you understand it: You have no positive evidence that IC systems cannot evolve. Therefore, the irreducible complexity argument is moot. A non-sequitur. Without positive evidence, you cannot make a positive assertion. OK so far? 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 definately evolved (in context). Given that this is the case, that you are making a claim & I'm not, back up your claim. Oh, you can’t? Well, I'm sorry, Ahmad, you therefore have no argument. You made a claim, & I didn't. I have NOTHING I have to back up. You do. Regarding the Cambrian explosion: What part of the ToE is specifically contradicted by the Cambrian explosion. If you are going to claim a limit, I expect you to show that limit actually exists. [Added by edit] What is your assertion regarding the Cambrian explosion? Are you saying that God created life at the phyla level with "multipurpose" genomes that could then evolve into the many sub-taxa, orders, classes, families that we see today, with the genetic complexity built in? If not, what? I'll try to get to the rest asap. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 11-25-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 11-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6011 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
You keep insisting that it is part of the definition of I.C. that it is "unevolvable". As far as I know, Behe does not use the term this way. His definition ONLY involves whether the system can function if any part is missing.
The "unevolvable" part is a further conclusion based on assumptions about possible evolutionary paths. I've already covered in my previous post that there are other possible paths. Also, punctuated equilibrium is STILL "gradual" evolution, just at a geologically fast time scale.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Ahmad wrote:
quote: All organisms are fully-formed. There is no such thing as a half-formed organism. And how do you define "highly complex", and "distinct from each other"? This line of debate with you, Ahmad, is becoming tiresome. It seems that you are determined to hold tightly to every misconception about science and Biology that you have come here with, regardless of any evidence put before you. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
quote: How does this gametic incompatibility give rise to new species? How does genetic isolation explain the existence of more than 2 million species worldwide and with what evidence? How does this account for an evolutionary process? Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Ahmad:
quote: In a nutshell, divergent populations accumulate genetic changes over time. The longer populations have been isolated — for whatever reason — the more they diverge from the parent stock because the more mutations and random genetic recombinations occur — and are thrown up to the tender mercies of natural selection. In the case cited, gametic incompatibility is the isolating mechanism. There are a lot of others, including behavioral ones. It's a lot more complex when you start talking full biodiversity, but that's the basic mechanism of speciation. It quite easily explains the 10 million+ species on Earth today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
quote: Right. He fails to mention the step-by-step evolution of the inhibitor and anti-inhibitor that the beetle possesses without which it will blow itself up to an oblivion!!
quote: By empirical evidence. If evidence is provided that falsifies the idea of IC.... then lest its definition, the theory itself will collapse!!
quote: Right, a system is not IC if it's complexity can be simplified,i.e, it can do the same function with the loss of a component that it previously did [i][b]with[/i][/b] the component. That is Irreducible complexity. So if it can be shown that IC systems are capable of evolving,i.e, proven otherwise, with evidence then you have the theory collapsed.
quote: So you need a demonstration? I'll use a biological example here: UCSD IT Service Portal - Information Technology The Cilia
quote: There are other biochemical systems that are irreducibly complex and can be found here: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm So now I have demonstrated my point of view with an example (in this case, the Cilia). I hope that suffices. There are much more in the website.
quote: Nah, it ain't personal prejudice. I am measuring the gaps the same way the evolutionists shout out loud of the "fossil imperfections" as they call it. Ofcourse, the fossil record is essentially complete according to recent news but nonetheless they don't cease shouting.
quote: No I am not. If naturalistic explanations fail the test to suffice a phenomenon, then what am I supposed to do? You tell me: If something exists that cannot be explained by naturalistic explanations, what is the other viable option? Don't put words in my mouth. Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
You asked that;
quote: & now ask;
quote: Under the biological species concept, a species is (for sexually reproducing species) ..groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups." (Mayr 1942). Note that there is no requirement for "great advantageous change in the genetic information". Taking your points one by one.
quote: If two populations can’t exchange genetic material because the sperm can’t fertilise the egg, they are separate species by definition.
quote: Strange question. Genetic isolation of previously un-isolated populations produces new species. Repeat ad nauseum until you get to 2 million. You’re asking the wrong question.
quote: It creates small populations that can evolve without genetic interaction with each other, & allows for diversity. It occurs to me that you fundamentally misunderstand evolution & the role of speciation. Obviously, you originally thought that two species must have positive adaptive differences in order for it to be considered that speciation took place. This is fundamentally incorrect. ALL that has to take place is genetic isolation of two populations for speciation to occur. Those two populations are then free to accumulate mutations without contamination by the other population. Over a period of time, the mutant alleles get fixed/eliminated resulting in visibly different organisms, especially if different environmental factors are in action. At the same time, the other population is doing exactly the same, exacerbating the process. If you factor in multiple speciation events & morphological change, then the further up the tree you go the more different the daughter species can become. The effect of this process is the nested hierarchy that is actually observed in real life. I should like a response to message 140, please. The questions in it predate your last large post, & will affect how I reply. Don’t misunderstand, your questions are valid & I should like to tackle them in due course. It’s just that the original points of contention have spiralled out of control into colossal diversions. The last biggy made 20 pages when I pasted it into Word! I was thinking maybe you would like to divide the post into individual subjects & start new threads (including this one), leaving the original contentions (IC, & Ce evolution is falsified) here. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 11-26-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Ahmad,
Thanks for the response - feel we're getting somewhere now. I'll have a look at the links and evidence you've posted and get back to you. Bit pushed at the moment PE ------------------It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. - Bertrand Russell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
This is one of two topics covering the subject line topic (see message 2 for a link to the other one).
This topic has wandered into areas better covered in other forums (ie. the "Intelligent Design" forum). Much of the recent discussion is very good, but belongs elsewhere. Please find a more apropriate topic. I am closing this topic. Adminnemooseus ------------------{mnmoose@lakenet.com} |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024