Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 148 (24181)
11-25-2002 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Ahmad
11-25-2002 5:49 AM


quote:
Isaak tried to explain how the mechanism of the bombardier beetle could have come by evolution but he was wrong in many aspects.
Wrong in many aspects, huh? Pray, continue.
quote:
If that is the case with a system, it is not irreducibly complex; in fact, it CANNOT be irreducibly complex since it evolved according to Behe's defintion
quote:
Therefore, an IC system, by definition, is unevolvable... unless proven otherwise
quote:
So unless it is demonstrated otherwise, an IC system is unevolvable
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:
There is a difference between explaining ongoing natural processes and the origins of natural processes. To use an analogy, just because a software program runs without the creator being present doesn't mean we should say there was no personal creator. Also, evolutionary theory has its own gaps that are assumed to occur without support by direct evidence. This is not to say that a broad theory of science has to explain every detail before being accepted. However, when it comes to evolutionary theory, far more gaps are accepted than are typical for other scientific theories.
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:
There is another reason why Dr. Behe's ideas should not be equated to the God of the gaps idea. In the past, the gaps were generally due to lack of information about certain natural processes. In contrast, Dr. Behe's ideas involve processes where we do have information. That information, though not complete, is sufficient to indicate problems with postulating completely naturalistic explanations.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Ahmad, posted 11-25-2002 5:49 AM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Ahmad, posted 11-26-2002 7:40 AM Primordial Egg has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 139 of 148 (24214)
11-25-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by edge
11-24-2002 11:00 AM


Oop. Wrong person, soz Edge.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by edge, posted 11-24-2002 11:00 AM edge has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 140 of 148 (24217)
11-25-2002 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Ahmad
11-24-2002 6:45 AM


[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:
We have observed the irreducible complexity in numerous organelles of living organisms (eg - bacterial flagellum, ATP synthase molecule, proteins etc)which refutes evolution
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Ahmad, posted 11-24-2002 6:45 AM Ahmad has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 141 of 148 (24224)
11-25-2002 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Ahmad
11-25-2002 5:49 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Ahmad, posted 11-25-2002 5:49 AM Ahmad has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 142 of 148 (24249)
11-25-2002 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by edge
11-24-2002 11:00 AM


Ahmad wrote:
quote:
And the organisms that emerged were very dictinct from each other, highly complex, and fully-formed.
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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by edge, posted 11-24-2002 11:00 AM edge has not replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 148 (24375)
11-26-2002 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by mark24
11-20-2002 9:26 AM


quote:
Correct, there need not be anything advantageous (or disadvantageous, for that matter) about speciation. All speciation requires (under the biological species concept) is genetic isolation between two populations. There is absolutely no stipulation that the mutations involved cannot be neutral.
For example, the sperm in population A may change to such a point that they are no longer compatible with population B's eggs. Genetic exchange is now impossible between the two populations, they have passed a point of no return, they are separate species. Note the changes in population A's sperm are neutral with respect to it's own population.
This is known as gametic incompatibility.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by mark24, posted 11-20-2002 9:26 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Quetzal, posted 11-26-2002 7:24 AM Ahmad has not replied
 Message 146 by mark24, posted 11-26-2002 7:44 AM Ahmad has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 144 of 148 (24381)
11-26-2002 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Ahmad
11-26-2002 6:21 AM


Hi Ahmad:
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Ahmad, posted 11-26-2002 6:21 AM Ahmad has not replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 148 (24383)
11-26-2002 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Primordial Egg
11-25-2002 6:57 AM


quote:
Wrong in many aspects, huh? Pray, continue.
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:
You're speaking in riddles man. An IC system is by definition unevolvable....unless proven otherwise?. How do you disprove a definitional proof??
By empirical evidence. If evidence is provided that falsifies the idea of IC.... then lest its definition, the theory itself will collapse!!
quote:
So, it can't be IC if it evolves? Whats all this unless proven otherwise malarkey?
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 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.
So you need a demonstration? I'll use a biological example here:
UCSD IT Service Portal - Information Technology
The Cilia
quote:
Cilia are hair-like structures, which are used by animals and plants to move fluid over various surfaces (for example, cilia in your respiratory tree sweep mucous towards the throat and thus promote elimination of contaminants) and by single-celled organisms to move through water. Cilia are like "oars" which contain their own mechanism for bending. That mechanism involves tiny rod-like structures called microtubules that are arranged in a ring. Adjacent microtubules are connected to each other by two types of "bridges"-a flexible linker bridge and an arm that can "walk" up the neighboring microtubule. The cilia bends by activating the "walker" arms, and the sliding motion that this tends to generate is converted to a bending motion by the flexible linker bridges.
Thus, the cilium has several essential components: stiff microtubules, linker bridges, and the "motors" in the form of walker arms. While my description is greatly simplified (Behe notes that over 200 separate proteins have been identified in this particular system), these 3 components form the basic system, and show what is required for functionality. For without one of these components, the system simply will not function. We can't evolve a cilium by starting with microtubules alone, because the microtubules will be fixed and rigid-not much good for moving around. Adding the flexible linker bridges to the system will not do any good either-there is still no motor and the cilia still will not bend. If we have microtubules and the walker arms (the motors) but no flexible linker arms, the microtubules will keep on sliding past each other till they float away from each other and are lost.
This is only one of many biochemical systems that Behe discusses in his book, Darwin's Black Box. Other examples of irreducible complexity include the light-sensing system in animal eyes, the transport system within the cell, the bacterial flagellum, and the blood clotting system. All consist of a very complex system of interacting parts which cannot be simplified while maintaining functionality.
Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes."
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:
Strange thing to say. How are you measuring gap counts here? Sounds more like a personal prejudice to me.
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:
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?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-25-2002 6:57 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-26-2002 10:34 AM Ahmad has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 146 of 148 (24384)
11-26-2002 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Ahmad
11-26-2002 6:21 AM


Ahmad,
You asked that;
quote:
Huh? So you're telling me (correct me if I am wrong) that a change from one species to another does not require a great advantageous change in the genetic information?
& now ask;
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?
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:
How does this gametic incompatibility give rise to new species?
If two populations can’t exchange genetic material because the sperm can’t fertilise the egg, they are separate species by definition.
quote:
How does genetic isolation explain the existence of more than 2 million species worldwide and with what evidence?
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:
How does this account for an evolutionary process?
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Ahmad, posted 11-26-2002 6:21 AM Ahmad has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 148 (24406)
11-26-2002 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Ahmad
11-26-2002 7:40 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Ahmad, posted 11-26-2002 7:40 AM Ahmad has not replied

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


Message 148 of 148 (24407)
11-26-2002 10:36 AM


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}

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024