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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 62 of 148 (22204)
11-11-2002 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Ahmad
11-11-2002 6:46 AM


Ahmad,
quote:
Mark:
None of the above have been DEMONSTRATED to be IC. Can you provide ANY scientific literature that concludes ANY genetic structure or sequence is IC? Do you know why?
quote:
Ahmad:
Your approach to respond to my argument is quite sarcastic. I provided scientific about how the presense of hsp70 in the genome is irreducibly complex. For scientific literature go here >> http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mg1darwinianpathways.htm
Where was the sarcasm?
I have read the actual paper (http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/...reation/web/Thornhill.pdf), & find no support for IC structures as defined by creationists. That is, a structure such that at least one of its components is essential, with its loss rendering the whole structure absolutely nonfunctional. Meaning that the structure had to have been designed, & could not have evolved (or some such).
Thornhill & Ussery take care to define IC as:
quote:
The quality of a structure such that at least one of its components is essential, with its loss rendering the whole structure absolutely nonfunctional.
functional structures.
Your cite agrees with me that T&U’s definition of IC differs from Behes.
I have no problem with your cites definition, except that IC cannot arise by evolutionary mechanisms. Perhaps I should have more accurately stated the question as;
Can you provide any scientific literature that concludes that no IC structure can have evolved?
The ORIGINAL SOURCE for your cite explicitly provides a general mechanism in order to explain the above IC using their definition, & certainly doesn’t conclude the opposite.
quote:
Mark:
You can believe in IC all you like, but without the ability to test the hypothesis it is merely wishful thinking.
quote:
Ahmad:
Once again, sarcasm. Why don't you respond to my arguments with empirical evidence instead of sheer sarcams which does no benefit to our dialog whatsoever.
Once again, where was the sarcasm?
quote:
IC is not a hypothesis, it is evident. I gave you the examples.
IC (as creationists define it) most definitely ISN’T evident. If it were, you would be able to produce a paper that concludes that an IC structure couldn’t evolve. Let us not get hung on definitions, unless I explicitly state otherwise, I will be using the creationist meaning of IC, that is, that an IC system cannot have evolved. This contention has NEVER been demonstrated, it is therefore NOT evident.
quote:
Mark:
Fine, you tell ME how long the Cambrian explosion took. I think you'll finfd it's a tad longer than you think.
quote:
Hmmm....... 53 million years?
My point precisely, hardly an explosion. Not all the organisms appear at the base of the explosion, do they?
quote:
Mark:
Incorrect. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct96.html
quote:
Talk origins is behind date. Fossils recently found challenge the rapid animal evolution in the cambrian period as talk origins claims >> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...7/0719_crustacean.html
In short, they are wrong
Ahmad, do you read your own cites?
You claim to have refuted my argument that the Cambrian explosion was an event taking millions of years? Your cite agrees with me.
quote:
Now, two well-preserved fossils half a millimeter (one-fiftieth of an inch) long of crustaceansancient relatives to crabs, shrimp, and lobstersfound in 511 million-year-old limestone deposits in Shropshire, England, lend credence to the theory that a long evolutionary fuse preceded the Cambrian explosion.
quote:
Mark:
No one is saying that evolution never proceeded at a rattling good pace. Just that an "explosion" is seen by many creationists to be instantaneous, when in fact, many millions of years elapse, & that's before you factor in the Precambrian faunas.
quote:
Ahmad:
Once again, your argument is dated.
Nope, see above, noting lend credence to the theory that a long evolutionary fuse preceded the Cambrian explosion.
Furthermore, it is not dated, since it has long been known that highly derived trilobites appear at the earliest strata of the CE. And, as I have noted, & you have failed to respond, metazoans pre-date the explosion by a considerable period.
quote:
Mark: On a related note, how do you rationalise the Cambrian explosion with your version of special creation, given metazoans exist before the "explosion"?
quote:
Ahmad:
existed before? The very first appearance of metazoans took place during the Camnrian era.
Wrong.
The ediacarans are multicellular animals that lived in the upper proterozoic. True, there is debate as to whether they are metazoans or parazoans, but the fact remains that multicellular animals existed in the Precambrian.
Shelly fossils, true metazoans, commonly called the Tommotian fauna existed in the Precambrian 570 mya, pre-dating the Cambrian by 30 million years. Also cnidarians are true metazoans & have representatives in the Precambrian.
http://www.uwsp.edu/...hefferan/Geol106/CLASS5/TOMMOTIAN.htm
quote:
Tommotion Fauna existed at the base of the Cambrian and were marked by small shelly fossils, on the order of millimeters in scale. This fauna, which existed 570-560 Ma were fundamentally important in that they represented metazoans containing the first known hard parts and were the predecessors to the phyla of the Cambrian Explosion.
A Vendian Scene (Ediacara & cnidarians, themselves a metazoan phyla), yesterday.
What does this remind you of? A trilobite? Would you be surprised to learn that this fossil predates the Cambrian by 20 million years plus?
Spriggina
"Spriggina was described as an annelid (segmented worm), but it now appears to be related to the arthropods, although Spriggina had no hard parts, and it is unclear exactly what kind of appendages it had. Compare it to our pictures of trilobites and see what you think!"
It is important to note that the Cambrian onset was 543 mya, & was recently placed at this juncture to mark the onset of the Cambrian explosion. Anything before 543 mya was before the Cambrian explosion.
quote:
Mark:If a new extant species is discovered tomorrow, did it appear abruptly?
quote:
Ahmad: That would depend once we investigate the origin of the species
You miss the point. You are insisting on appearances of fossils as being abrupt/instant in the fossil record, so following the same logic, a new discovery of a species must mean the same thing, right? The organism was created on the day of its discovery, what else could explain the fact that it has never been seen before?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Ahmad, posted 11-11-2002 6:46 AM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Ahmad, posted 11-13-2002 1:17 PM mark24 has replied

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


Message 63 of 148 (22206)
11-11-2002 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Ahmad
11-11-2002 8:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad: Firstly, what criterias do you use to distinguish between a scientific magazine (as SCIAM, discover) and journals?
Popular magazines are for-profit and publish articles which are directed at a general audience.
Professional science journals are not for profit. They are the place where scientists publish their work. They are peer-reviewed, which means that a committee of experienced scientists in the field (Evolutionary Biologists would review Evolutionary Biology papers submitted to an Evolutionary Biology Journal, for example) reviews the work submitted by scientists for methodological soundness, to see if their statistical work is good, to make sure they took into account other explanations from past research that might apply to their work, etc. Usually a paper is not accepted for publication on first submission and it is sent back along with suggestions for how to improve it, what additional experiments might need to be conducted to get better data, etc. If the revisions are relatively minor then it will be resubmitted after these are completed and probably accepted for publication.
Certain journals, likd Nature and Science are very prestigious and difficult to get into because they encompass all of science and only publish very important or groundbreaking work. Other more specialized journals are also prestigious within their fields; Psychological Review, for example, is one of the most important journals to get published in if you are a research Psychologist.
quote:
Secondly, why don't you accept quotes from scientific magazines or even medias like national review? Do they lie?
It's not that they lie, it's just that they do not represent evidence from research in the same way as the professional literature does. It is not as reliable because it has been filtered through editors and writers.
It would be like quoting from the Reader's Digest version of War and Peace instead of the original. Who knows how the meanings have been changed?
quote:
"Nature" is a journal. However, "atheists" do not censor the scientific journals. What is published goes through an anonymous peer-review process. If Creationists are not being published it must be either (1) They aren't submitting papers or (2) they don't have any evidence. And I have never heard of a Creationist showing off rejection notices from the journals!
quote:
And I have never seen any creation articles in Nature journal. For the sake of fairness, Nature should have at the least taken the step to publish one creation article or hold debates. They don't do that now do they?
Look, most non-Creationist scientists never get published in Nature, either.
I hat to break it to you, but since Creation science is based upon divine revelation rather than evidence, and since most Creationists spend their time trying to tear down Evolution rather than doing their OWN research, I doubt that any Creationist has even submitted for publication in the first place.
Why should science jounals publish non-science?
quote:
Discover is a popular magazine that covers science and technology, not a peer reviewed journal. SciAm is better, but is headed in that direction.
quote:
Discover does review and verify its articles and checks the credentials of the authors. Its quite unbiased unlike Nature, IMO.
LOL! See above for what peer-review means.
quote:
Its not a letter or a commentary but a statement by H.P Lipson, a physicist.
A "statement" is a commentary. The point remains that a statement is not evidence from a journal article.
quote:
The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.
So? This refutes Evolution how?
[QUOTE]So a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed.[QUOTE] Since, by definition, life arose with the ability to perform this conversion, what is your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Ahmad, posted 11-11-2002 8:08 AM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Ahmad, posted 11-13-2002 1:36 PM nator has replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 148 (22209)
11-11-2002 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Ahmad
11-11-2002 8:08 AM


We can simplify the 2LoT debate greatly if you wouuldn't mind pointing out which specific step in evolution violates the 2LoT.
There's no outcry in the physics community about the 2LoT being violated and posting 22 year old out of context articles from ahem- chemical engineering industry publications doesn't serve your case particularly well either.
quote:
But, we might ask, does not added energy ever slow down entropy? Yes, but only when carefully applied by an outside intelligence.
It takes energy to build a house out of planks, pipes out of galvanized steel, windows out of glass, and then apply paint and maintain it all. By so doing, we slow entropy for a time. An intelligence higher than the house constructed it and keeps it in good shape. Eventually, the higher being steps back and stops the endless repairs and replacementsand entropy takes over. The house falls to pieces. The living organism is like that house. It requires continual maintenance to keep it in proper shape.
It seems your understanding of entropy needs work. Can you expound on the mechanism by which intelligence affects the thermodynamic properties of adiabatically closed systems (without resorting to analogy)? How do you define intelligence in this context?
Seems to me the higher being's getting his energy from the sun.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Ahmad, posted 11-11-2002 8:08 AM Ahmad has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 65 of 148 (22222)
11-11-2002 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Ahmad
11-11-2002 8:08 AM


Despite the name, Science Magazine is a journal like Nature. A subscription even costs about the same as Nature, about $150/year, less if you're a student.
2LOT is a basic principle of the natural world. The simplest way of stating 2LOT is in terms of a closed system, but of course it applies to all systems, both open and closed. Another simple way of stating 2LOT: "Heat always flows toward cold and never the reverse unless work is done."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Ahmad, posted 11-11-2002 8:08 AM Ahmad has not replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 148 (22226)
11-11-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
11-10-2002 9:42 AM


quote:
LOL! Another ancient argument that was refuted long ago but is still kept alive by the faithful.
No, the 2LoT is NOT violated by Evolution. In a nutshell, the reason it isn't is because the 2LoT applies only to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system because it is bombarded with energy from the sun. See more here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
Christian Fundamentalists have been using this argument to impress people who don't understand physics for many decades. Your Harun fellow is not big into original thought, is he? Oh well, I suppose it works, so why reinvent the wheel, eh?
Don't get too excited. The response for adrenaline won't do you any good. Frank Steiger has already been refuted by Wallace here >> http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp
So, you were saying......
quote:
Robert Shapiro does not deal with Evolution. He writes about Abiogenisis, which is different altogether. As far as I know, he fully accepts Evolution.
Oh Shapiro is an agnostic and an evolutionist. As I have seen, many evolutionists have criticised Shapiro for his works on Abiogenesis. Thats why I mentioned him.
quote:
Fred Hoyle is an Evolutionist.
I don't think so. Fred Hoyle was a darwinist critic. Remember the Boeing-747 story? His book, "Mathematics of evolution" where he introduces the Panspermia theory as an alternative to the theory of evolution. He is also author of "Why neo-darwinism does not work?" and "The Intelligent Universe". What makes you say that Hoyle's an evolutionist is queer.
quote:
Michael Behe is an evolutionist. His book is also a "God of the Gaps" book.
Behe is a theistic evolutionist (as I remember) but not sure. His book on IC explains the different co-ordination in organelles in systems. Why do you classify it as "God of the Gaps" book?
quote:
William Dembski's book has been widely criticised as one big "argument from ignorance"; "because we don't unkerstan X, God must have done it."
You have not used one iota of evidence to back up your claim. Hence, its a baseless assertion. As as I know, Dembski, who previously taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas and has a Ph.D in philosphy and Mathematics, can hardly be called "ignorant".
quote:
Philip Johnson is famous only for being an anti-Evolutionist, because he isn't even a scienctist. He is a lawyer.
Phillip Johnson, even though he's a lawyer, makes excellent points against evolution. You have the right to question his credentials, but his articles, on reading, will not provoke you to.
"Law professor Phillip Johnson is a legal philosopher whose books on Darwinian speculation have shaken the liberal establishment and embarrassed doctrinaire naturalism." (Insight Mag)
quote:
Did you mean to mention all of these Evolutionists to support your argument?
Some, I have, some I will Insha Allah.
quote:
This is a popular press book, not from a peer-reviewed, professional science journal.
So pop-press books by Dawkins, Grasse all spread lies? I am sure they bear some weight to my argument.
quote:
This is getting silly. This is a popular press book. Don't you know what a professiona science journal is?
Besides, all of these books are at LEAST 30 years old!
I will try to cite, as frequesntly as possible, from Journals henceforth but the quotation from various books by known authors will not cease. I do agree that the books are at least 30 years old but the fact that they are still recognized as authority in the scientific community is what matters.
quote:
Ah, but my assertions are not baseless. I can provide evidence. Have a look around this site and tell me how many arguments sound familiar:
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
Dated. Timothy Wallace has a rebut for that site here >> http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
quote:
Read through the TalkOrigins site. You can do searches on any topic, such as "Thermodynamics". If you are truly interested in the truth about scientific theories, this site will be very useful to you.
Talk origins is a biased website that only seeks to uphold the materialistic philosophy of Darwin. It takes advantage of the little knowledge of their readers to propagate baseless and unscientific asserions. Some deceptions of talkorigins is outlines by Jorge Fernandez here >> http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
That site will be very useful to you.
quote:
Your religious leader twists science for his religious purpose.
Science need not be twisted for religious purposes and Harun Yahya is not a religious leader.
quote:
This is unconstitutional in the US and will not last.
Lets just wait and see..
quote:
Cite from the PROFESSIONAL literature, please.
"One thing that interested us is that there are 500 thousand to 1 million Alu repeats across the human genome," says Ramin Shiekhattar, Ph.D., an associate professor at The Wistar Institute and senior author on the Nature study. "These sequences are very common. And this makes sense if one of their roles is to bind to the bridging proteins, the cohesins, to keep the replicated DNA sisters together until it is time for them to separate. Multiple bridging sites throughout the DNA would be needed for this system to work. They couldn't be unique sequences."
I got this from Science Daily >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2002/08/020830072103.htm
Surely you will regard this information about the Unjunk "Junk DNA" trsutworthy unless...... Science daily is another pop-press Journal, as you call it.
quote:
There are no obsevations of irreducable complexity.
Not one.
This is just an argument from ignorance.
Behe tried to say that the mechanism for bloodclotting was irreducably complex, for example, but only a few years since his book came out, an evolutionary pathway for blood clotting has been discovered.
IC is evident. It is observable. It has been found in ATP synthase molecule, the hsp70 genome, cilia, bacterial flagellum etc. Regarding your last statement, there is no proof for any evolutionary pathway for blood clotting, is there?
quote:
Tell me, how could your version of Creation Science be falsified? What evidence, if discovered, would make you abandon Creationism?
Hmmm.... evidence for the Non-Existence of the Creator
quote:
That's what it does. HOW does it do that was my question.
By numerous ways:
1. collecting empirical evidence
2. applying logic
3. determining possibilities
4. determining the root cause
There are others, but these are the ones at my head now.
quote:
I disagree. Science doesn't HAVE to contradict religion, but religion contradicts science all the time.
The very essense of religion is to believe in God. How does that contradict science?
quote:
An explanation of the scientific method. What method of inquiry do scientists use to conduct science?
Logical investigation of a phenomenon, process, or a mechanism. Determining causes and effects. Drawing conclusions taking all the scientific criterias at hand, in consideration. Comparison; by comparing the particular phenomenon to others that have been established as facts, scientists can have a better understanding of it. Classification; After comparison, we can classify this phenomenon under a category that satisifies all the criterias of the phenomenon. Then the phenomenon is theorized depending largely on the emprical evidence. There are many different strategies by which we can understand the nature, function, properties of the phenomenon making them available in flow-charts, concept maps, venn diagrams, mind maps etc etc. I hope I made some sense.
quote:
How does one tell the difference between real science and pseudo science?
I am not a scientist to satisfactorily answer that question but as a student I think....... real science deals with Logic, Rationality and Reason. Pseudoscience, OTOH, is quite the opposite. It works with conclusions drawn by relative observations but not based on empirical evidence as real science. However, I don't think there any such thing as pseudoscience (come to think of it) as it is oxymoron.
quote:
Or, how does one tell the difference between pseudoscience and religion?
Pseudo science is not science in the first place. Finding differences between pseudoscience and religion would be futile then. Religion is a way of life ordained by God to His creations. As a Muslim, I believe there always has been one true religion, Islam (literally defined as submission to the Will of God).Pseudoscience, however, upholds superstiton and materialism which is in complete contrast with religion.
quote:
I should have written, "how does one tell the difference between SCIENCE and religion?" above. That is the question I wish you to answer.
;Sigh.... and now you ask me. But I will try to respond nonetheless: let me ask you this first, WHY do you want to differentiate between Science and Religion?The very purpose for this differentiation seems null and void. On insistance, Science works by reason and logic and religion works by faith and reason (as I see it). However, it is strictly my opinion about it. Science and Religion go hand-in-hand as Einstein puts it: "Science without religion is Lame and Religion without Science is blind".
Al-Hamdulillah, I rest my case!!
Regards,
Ahmad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 11-10-2002 9:42 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by John, posted 11-11-2002 10:41 AM Ahmad has replied
 Message 69 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-11-2002 10:48 AM Ahmad has not replied
 Message 71 by mark24, posted 11-11-2002 10:53 AM Ahmad has not replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 148 (22228)
11-11-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Primordial Egg
11-11-2002 7:41 AM


Behe has responded to all his critics >> http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_response.htm
Regards,
Ahmad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-11-2002 7:41 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 148 (22229)
11-11-2002 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Ahmad
11-11-2002 10:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:

So, you were saying......

Repeating the same crap does not make for a good argument.
Or, two misunderstandings do not make an understanding.
quote:
His book, "Mathematics of evolution" where he introduces the Panspermia theory as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
Panspermia isn't an alternative to evolution. It is an alternative to abiogenesis-- sort-of.
quote:
Why do you classify it as "God of the Gaps" book?
Yup.
quote:
As as I know, Dembski, who previously taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas and has a Ph.D in philosphy and Mathematics, can hardly be called "ignorant".
None of the credentials have any bearing on whether his book is or is not an argument from ignorance. This sentence, however, does illustrate your ignorance of informal logic.
quote:
So pop-press books by Dawkins, Grasse all spread lies? I am sure they bear some weight to my argument.
No, but the books are written for a lay ausdience and use a lot of metaphor and not many equations. Metaphor can be misleading.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Ahmad, posted 11-11-2002 10:22 AM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Ahmad, posted 11-13-2002 1:48 PM John has replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 148 (22230)
11-11-2002 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Ahmad
11-11-2002 10:22 AM


quote:
Einstein puts it: "Science without religion is Lame and Religion without Science is blind".
Ahmad,
Other Einstein quotes:
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world. "
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it. "
"have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. "
"A man's moral worth is not measured by what his religious beliefs are but rather by what emotional impulses he has received from Nature during his lifetime. "
"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously"
"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?"
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being."
Its a popular misconception that Einstein was a "God-believer" in the conventional sense and he is often quote mined, either for his "religion blind and lame" comment (as quoted by you) or the "god does not play dice with the universe", the general argument being that since Einstein understood a great deal about cosmology and was a very clever man, he would therefore be able to opine authoritatively on the nature of God. Its more accurate to say he was a pantheist, believing God and the material universe to be one and the same (similar to Spinoza). So no heaven, hell or houris, I'm afraid.
Unless of course you don't agree with what Einstein had to say on religion. In which case you wouldn't be quoting him to support your argument.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Ahmad, posted 11-11-2002 10:22 AM Ahmad has not replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 148 (22232)
11-11-2002 10:53 AM


I see many other responses. Due to Ramadan (a period when Muslims abstain from food and drink from dawn to dusk) and my final years exams, I might not be able to respond to each of the rebuts and arguments pronto. Insha Allah (if God willing), after Ramadan and my exams I will continue this productive dialog
Regards,
Ahmad

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by edge, posted 11-11-2002 12:50 PM Ahmad has not replied

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


Message 71 of 148 (22233)
11-11-2002 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Ahmad
11-11-2002 10:22 AM


Ahmed,
quote:
IC is evident.
No, it isn't. IC (that cannot evolve) is a hypothesis, & an as yet untested one. For the record, I have no problem with IC as defined as "the quality of a structure such that at least one of its components is essential, with its loss rendering the whole structure absolutely nonfunctional". What I do have a problem with is your claim that this is EVIDENTLY UNEVOLVABLE. You simply don't know.
By stating IC is evident you are making a circular argument. That is to say, the conclusion is the same as the premise.
Let me put it another way. You believe there are IC systems that cannot evolve, right? This is your hypothesis, not your evidence. In order to test the hypothesis you are claiming that IC is evident. How? NO ONE HAS EVER DEMONSTRATED THE NON-EVOLVABILITY OF IC, so how can it possibly be evident? Therefore, in order to support/test your hypothesis, you need to show that it is IMPOSSIBLE for such a thing to occur. Can you? This is the only way we are going to get a deductive, objective answer.
So far all you have done is cite an article that uses a paper that ACTUALLY proposes a mechanism for IC systems to evolve. This supports my contention, not yours. In science, a hypothesis is NOT self evident, it is circular, & a logical fallacy.
quote:
It is observable. It has been found in ATP synthase molecule, the hsp70 genome, cilia, bacterial flagellum etc. Regarding your last statement, there is no proof for any evolutionary pathway for blood clotting, is there?
It is YOU who are contending that these systems are unevolvable, not me. The burden of evidence is on you to support the unevolvable IC hypothesis, not me. Another logical fallacy; shifting the burden of proof.
Actually, Doolittle provided a plausible scenario for the evolution of the clotting cascade, but I'm buggered if I can find it at the moment. Anyone?
In summary;
If you are going to make the non-evolvability of IC scientific, then you need a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. You need to present evidence that supports that hypothesis (& not just systems that fall apart if one aspect is removed, but the non-evolvable part).
Non-evolvability of IC systems is not self evident.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Ahmad, posted 11-11-2002 10:22 AM Ahmad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-11-2002 11:04 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 73 by Mammuthus, posted 11-11-2002 11:12 AM mark24 has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 148 (22234)
11-11-2002 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by mark24
11-11-2002 10:53 AM


quote:
Actually, Doolittle provided a plausible scenario for the evolution of the clotting cascade, but I'm buggered if I can find it at the moment. Anyone?
Is this the one?
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR22.1/doolittle.html
excerpt:
"In fact, Behe employs a variety of creationist arguments that have been abused in the past. Of all these, the "improbability argument" is the most fallacious and most misunderstood. Thus, Behe writes about the likelihood of assembling appropriate combinations of parts of the proteins that function in a clotting scheme: "Doolittle apparently needs to shuffle and deal himself a number of perfect bridge hands to win the game. Unfortunately, the universe doesn't have time to wait." This statement follows upon some absurd arithmetic about possible combinations of shuffled units and comparisons to the Irish sweepstakes. His argument omits many relevant considerations: for example, most of the observed duplications and exon shuffling are localized to specific regions of specific chromosomes, so the number of combinations is not as large as he supposes. Its major fallacy, however, lies in the presumption that some special combination must be achieved. When we play bridge, any specified hand is just as unlikely as a perfect hand. But someone wins every time, whether or not they have a perfect hand.
This point about "perfect hands" brings me to what annoyed me most in Behe's book; his use of Rube Goldberg cartoons. Ironically, I have often used Goldberg's contrived linkages as examples of how evolution works! In fact, I have used them in teaching medical students about how macromolecular cascades function. I have also used the same cartoons in debating creationists, pointing out that no Creator would have designed such a circuitous and contrived system. Instead, this is how the opportunistic hand of natural selection works, using whatever happens to be available at the moment (the resources that result from such processes as gene duplication and exon shuffling). "
Looking at this board I see you hint at being a fellow Spurs supporter. Say it ain't so?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by mark24, posted 11-11-2002 10:53 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by mark24, posted 11-11-2002 1:25 PM Primordial Egg has not replied
 Message 106 by Ahmad, posted 11-17-2002 3:21 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 73 of 148 (22235)
11-11-2002 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by mark24
11-11-2002 10:53 AM


Actually, Doolittle provided a plausible scenario for the evolution of the clotting cascade, but I'm buggered if I can find it at the moment. Anyone?
++++++++++++++++++++++
This directly addresses Behe's arguments. http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/Clotting.html
I did not go all the way through to see if it ultimately links directly to Doolittle but it is referenced.
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by mark24, posted 11-11-2002 10:53 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Quetzal, posted 11-11-2002 11:34 AM Mammuthus has not replied

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


Message 74 of 148 (22238)
11-11-2002 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Mammuthus
11-11-2002 11:12 AM


Here's a link to Doolittle's full essay, A Delicate Balance. It's more of a rebuttal of Behe, but he references several articles at the bottom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Mammuthus, posted 11-11-2002 11:12 AM Mammuthus has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 75 of 148 (22247)
11-11-2002 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Ahmad
11-11-2002 10:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:
I see many other responses. Due to Ramadan (a period when Muslims abstain from food and drink from dawn to dusk) and my final years exams, I might not be able to respond to each of the rebuts and arguments pronto. Insha Allah (if God willing), after Ramadan and my exams I will continue this productive dialog
Regards,
Ahmad
I am particularly interested in how you answer Mark's questions regarding Pc fauna. If you are honest, you will agree that you have been misled by your professional creationists.
quote:
This is unconstitutional in the US and will not last.
Ahmad: Lets just wait and see..
I really don't have the time. You will need an afterlife to see this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Ahmad, posted 11-11-2002 10:53 AM Ahmad has not replied

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


Message 76 of 148 (22250)
11-11-2002 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Primordial Egg
11-11-2002 11:04 AM


PE, All,
Thank you for the Doolittle cites.
SPUUUUURS ARE ON THEIR WAY TO WEMBLEY !(well y'know what I mean, PE ) THE BOYS ARE GONNA DOO IT AGAIN..........
After that Chas n Dave rendition, I feel the need for some molluscs soaked in vinegar.
Curiously, Joz, who is now an intermittent poster here (unfortunately), was a Spurs boy too. There clearly is a statistics defying link between Tottenham Hotspur & intelligence (he says, crossing his fingers). I invite you to visit Highbury on a saturday afternoon to see the control sample .
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-11-2002 11:04 AM Primordial Egg 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