PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     How does one falsify ID?
       Does unintelligent design dalsify ID?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

IMHO, the only arguments that ID proponents seem to be forwarding these days consist of variants on the "irreducibly complex" argument popularized by Micheal Behe in Darwin's Black Box or arguments against evolution like the "holes in the fossil record" argument.

In the case of  Behe's argument we are presented whith an obvious argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument from ignorance.  I don't see how "Wow this is too complex for humans to understand right now" qualifies as a scientific answer.  Maybe some ID supporters can help me with this.

The second argument violates the either/or fallacy that is sometimes called the false dillema or excluded middle fallacy.  Correct me if I'm wrong but how do "holes in the fossil record" or the "Cambrian explosion" support intelligent design by a God any more than they support unintelligent design by a "stoned space alien" or economical design using recycled genetic templates by an "invisible pink unicorn".

The last I checked the only empirical evidence anybody has regarding the designers of complex systems is that they are teams of imperfect, sexually reproducing, mortal beings.

Come on IDers put up or shut up!!!
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:44 PM on November 25, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Look on the bright side, with all of the ID discussion going on, I haven't seen a 2LoT argument in months!


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:23 AM on November 26, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

2LoT?  Isn't that a hip-hop group?








j/k




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:58 PM on November 26, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Answer the questions, you slime-infested dirtbag.

Nawh, but a genuine response would be nice. Let's not turn this forum into a chatroom.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:45 PM on November 26, 2005 | IP
thsgoes211

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

”In the case of Behe’s argument we are presented whith an obvious argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument from ignorance.  I don't see how "Wow this is too complex for humans to understand right now" qualifies as a scientific answer.”  

I appreciate the exaggeration but there is more to the “irreducibly complex” argument than that in which you present.  It is not based on the idea that “we don’t understand it so it must be a miracle/God(s)” In fact I think views like that have served as nothing more than stumbling block on the road of scientific progress.  

It is based on what we DO understand.  The “irreducibly complex” argument wouldn’t hold water without current scientific knowledge.  The more we learn on the molecular level about cell structure, organization etc. the more unlikely the evolution of a whole organisms (bird, fish, donkey) seems.  The amount of “teamwork” involved on the molecular level for a cells to thrive, let along an organism evolve, makes the origin of de novo beneficial mutation (on any grand scale) statistically improbably.  

I will take the time here to note that I do believe in microevolution.  And if you want examples of irreducibly complex systems just ask.  I didn’t want to write a whole book on my first post unless you are interested, plus if you already read Behe I’d likely be somewhat redundant.  (By the way I haven’t read Behe’s book but am well aware of it.)


”The second argument violates the either/or fallacy that is sometimes called the false dillema or excluded middle fallacy.  Correct me if I'm wrong but how do "holes in the fossil record" or the "Cambrian explosion" support intelligent design by a God any more than they support unintelligent design by a "stoned space alien" or economical design using recycled genetic templates by an "invisible pink unicorn"

A lack of proof for evolution (i.e. “holes in the fossil record” and the “Cambrian Explosion”) does not prove ID by God anymore than by aliens.  All it does support is the existence of an intelligence/creator/maker for the array of creatures we see around us.  The need for existence of a God them comes from the need of a being/entity/conscious outside of time and space to create the aliens, pink unicorns and the universe.

All we know about the world is gathered from our experiences with our five senses.  And it is universally recognized that something never appears from nothing.  Experience would then dictate that there has to be something outside time and space to create the universe (God)because the universe and time DO have a beginning.  (Physicists will back me up.)


”The last I checked the only empirical evidence anybody has regarding the designers of complex systems is that they are teams of imperfect, sexually reproducing, mortal beings.”

A loaded, possibly rhetorical question?  If my above answers don’t get at what you want - could you restate it?


”Come on IDers put up or shut up!!!”

Dem fightin’ words.



-------
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated.
Wilfred Batten Lewis Trotter (1872-1939) English surgeon.

To say that a man is made up of certain chemical elements is a satisfactory description only for those who intend to use him as a fertilizer.
Hermann Joseph Muller (1890-1967) U. S. geneticist. Nobel prize for medicine 1946.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 8:00 PM on November 30, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is based on what we DO understand.  The “irreducibly complex” argument wouldn’t hold water without current scientific knowledge.


It doesn’t hold water notwithstanding. There’s one remaining organism you can consider nearly within the boundaries of ‘irreducible:’ the flagellum. Yet this is in large part because we still don’t fully know all the parts to it and their exact functions to begin with. Conveniently, this falls right under a ‘lack of understanding’ that fredguff was talking about.

The amount of “teamwork” involved on the molecular level for a cells to thrive, let along an organism evolve, makes the origin of de novo beneficial mutation (on any grand scale) statistically improbably.


It’s statistically improbable as it is, and nonetheless totally irrelevant. Either the universe had a—literally, mind you--infinite number of tries to get it right, or a supernatural deity deliberately created the first life with the full knowledge it would evolve.

I will take the time here to note that I do believe in microevolution.  And if you want examples of irreducibly complex systems just ask.  I didn’t want to write a whole book on my first post unless you are interested, plus if you already read Behe I’d likely be somewhat redundant.  (By the way I haven’t read Behe’s book but am well aware of it.)


No, just don’t go there. Citing examples from Behe will only force me to cite ten times that from folks like Ken Miller who have fully refuted every single model Behe’s ever conjured.

A lack of proof for evolution (i.e. “holes in the fossil record” and the “Cambrian Explosion”) does not prove ID by God anymore than by aliens.  All it does support is the existence of an intelligence/creator/maker for the array of creatures we see around us.


It doesn’t support anything more than the very prediction paleontologists, geologists, astronomers, physicists, chemists, and biologists conclusively agree on: that the earth is billions of years old, and that fossils are very difficult to preserve. Consider it a hint towards a creator if you like, but you can’t come to such conclusions from the evidence itself. You need to have that assertion in your head before you eve study the evidence, the very problem with ID proponents.

All we know about the world is gathered from our experiences with our five senses.  And it is universally recognized that something never appears from nothing.  Experience would then dictate that there has to be something outside time and space to create the universe (God)because the universe and time DO have a beginning.  (Physicists will back me up.)


Physicists will back up your first point, that something cannot come from nothing, yes, but not your latter statement. The universe created itself through the continuous cycle of contracting and expanding in an infinite amount of repetitions.

A loaded, possibly rhetorical question?  If my above answers don’t get at what you want - could you restate it?


More or less, he’s just condemning humanity, something any practical naturalist/biologist would logically have to agree with, given the severe destruction of Earth we’re the proximate cause of.

To say that a man is made up of certain chemical elements is a satisfactory description only for those who intend to use him as a fertilizer.
Hermann Joseph Muller (1890-1967) U. S. geneticist. Nobel prize for medicine 1946.


I don’t understand. Is Muller professing a belief that human beings aren’t made up of chemical elements?



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:29 PM on November 30, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Physicists will back up your first point, that something cannot come from nothing, yes, but not your latter statement. The universe created itself through the continuous cycle of contracting and expanding in an infinite amount of repetitions.


"Everything that has a beginning must have a cause".  I've heard this "infinite loop" theory before.  It completely ignores where the matter that is contracting and expanding came from in the first place.

I don’t understand. Is Muller professing a belief that human beings aren’t made up of chemical elements?


The point being that to an atheist, our chemical elements are the be-all and end-all of our existence.  Hence the atheists see humanity as fertilizer.  If chemical elements is (are?) all that we are then we have no higher purpose.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:34 AM on December 1, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I appreciate the exaggeration but there is more to the “irreducibly complex” argument than that in which you present.  It is not based on the idea that “we don’t understand it so it must be a miracle/God(s)” In fact I think views like that have served as nothing more than stumbling block on the road of scientific progress. It is based on what we DO understand.  The “irreducibly complex” argument wouldn’t hold water without current scientific knowledge.  The more we learn on the molecular level about cell structure, organization etc. the more unlikely the evolution of a whole organisms (bird, fish, donkey) seems.


So are you saying that we have discovered some sort of point of demarcation at the molecular level? What is this point of demarcation and how is it falsified?


The amount of “teamwork” involved on the molecular level for a cells to thrive, let along an organism evolve, makes the origin of de novo beneficial mutation (on any grand scale) statistically improbably.


Really?  How do you know this to be true?  Can you show us your math?


I will take the time here to note that I do believe in microevolution.  And if you want examples of irreducibly complex systems just ask.  I didn’t want to write a whole book on my first post unless you are interested, plus if you already read Behe I’d likely be somewhat redundant.  (By the way I haven’t read Behe’s book but am well aware of it.)


At what level does Macro-Evolution start and Micro Evolution end? Kingdom? Phylum? Class? We have very compelling evidence that all placental mammals share a common ancestor. Scientists have even created a genetic model for this creature. Furthermore, with the knowledge gleaned from the chimp and human  genomes, we are certain, beyond a shadow of doubt, that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.  


A lack of proof for evolution (i.e. “holes in the fossil record” and the “Cambrian Explosion”) does not prove ID by God anymore than by aliens.  All it does support is the existence of an intelligence/creator/maker for the array of creatures we see around us.  The need for existence of a God them comes from the need of a being/entity/conscious outside of time and space to create the aliens, pink unicorns and the universe.


Intelligent as you are using it is a subjective term. The horse's digestive tract does not exhibit the same "design intelligence" as the cow's digestive tract. Was the designer preoccupied with other matters when he designed the horse's gut?

I would also add that the need for a "being/entity/concious" is debateable.  At some point in our search for the first cause you might say "it is God" while somebody else might say "I don't know". For the skeptic searching for a scientific answer (as opposed to peace of mind) you are both saying the same thing.

All we know about the world is gathered from our experiences with our five senses.  And it is universally recognized that something never appears from nothing.  Experience would then dictate that there has to be something outside time and space to create the universe (God)because the universe and time DO have a beginning.  (Physicists will back me up.)


Some might argue that outside of the 5 senses, knowledge can be gained from introspection--but that's another debate. Your labeling of God as the first cause only prompts the skeptic to ask, "Who created God?"

"The last I checked the only empirical evidence anybody has regarding the designers of complex systems is that they are teams of imperfect, sexually reproducing, mortal beings.”

A loaded, possibly rhetorical question?  If my above answers don’t get at what you want - could you restate it?



Well, my use of the word "imperfect" is subjective.  But the last time I checked, the only evidence that we have regarding the "designers" of 747s, Rolex watches, the Internet, MTV, The NFL, Parliamentary Governments, Portland Oregon and all other complex systems that we know positively to be designed was that they were designed by humans.  Moreover, even if I were to conclude that most complex natural systems were designed by intelligent beings, I would also have to conclude that in many instances their "designs" are slip-shod--at least by reasonable human standards.  Comparing the digestive tract of a horse to the digestive tract of a cow is like comparing the electrical system of an MGB to the electrical system of a Miata.

”Come on IDers put up or shut up!!!”

Dem fightin’ words.


Sorry...You can take the boy out of Philadelphia but you can't take the "Philadelphia" out of the boy.



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:33 AM on December 1, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Philadelphia

City of Brotherly Love

A city named after a place in the Bible.

There's irony in there somewhere if I can just find it.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:00 PM on December 1, 2005 | IP
thsgoes211

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It doesn’t hold water notwithstanding. There’s one remaining organism you can consider nearly within the boundaries of ‘irreducible:’ the flagellum. Yet this is in large part because we still don’t fully know all the parts to it and their exact functions to begin with. Conveniently, this falls right under a ‘lack of understanding’ that fredguff was talking about.


The flagellum is one of the more convincing organelles only because it is one of the better understood.  And just think biologist understand the easiest processes first so imagine what irreducibly complex systems will emerge in the next 20 years.  Again the irreducible part comes from what we do understand.  Furthermore, there are many, not just “one remaining organism (did you mean organelle?).”    For example, see below, the ATP synthase.

ATP synthases are responsible for catalyzing the reaction of ATP synthesis. ATP acts as the “energy currency of the cell” and energy is required to make it.  (The formation of ATP from ADP and inorganic phosphate is endothermic.)  This is accomplished by ATP synthases’ ability to harness the electrochemical gradient of protons in the mitochondrial inner membrane space.  (ATP synthases are located in the inner membrane of the mitochondria.)  This electrochemical gradient is in turn created by the electron transport chain’s expulsion of protons into said space.  Which is in turn is driven by glycolysis and the TCA cycle and/or fermentation.  (Which in themselves consist of multi-subunited enzymes and large enzyme complexes all within the mitochondria)

So ignoring the fact that without glycolysis and fermentation and their careful passing of elections and protons there would be NO proton gradient for ATPase to harness.   And without this gradient ATP syntheses it will actually breakdown ATP.  And without asking how any of its subunits are properly inserted into the membrane  (there are whole assemblies of proteins responsible for aiding this process)  let alone how all the subunits aligned properly.  And excluding the myriad of molecular chaperones and targeting signals needed for any one protein to escape degradation.  And the proper regulation of all the chaperones and co-chaperones. I also presented a mathematical argument to fredguff showing that the odds are astronomical.

In conclusion the more we do discover the more complicated it all becomes and the less likely evolution seems.

It’s statistically improbable as it is, and nonetheless totally irrelevant. Either the universe had a—literally, mind you--infinite number of tries to get it right, or a supernatural deity deliberately created the first life with the full knowledge it would evolve.


The universe did not have infinite time, physicists will back me up.

The direct creation of a higher ordered (say genus?) array of creatures is still an option until the burden of proof says otherwise.  So bring on that burden of proof.

No, just don’t go there. Citing examples from Behe will only force me to cite ten times that from folks like Ken Miller who have fully refuted every single model Behe’s ever conjured.


I just finished reading Millers refute of the flagellum (I looked it up when you dropped his name) and did not find it “fully refuted.”  Please refute in your own words.

It doesn’t support anything more than the very prediction paleontologists, geologists, astronomers, physicists, chemists, and biologists conclusively agree on: that the earth is billions of years old, and that fossils are very difficult to preserve. Consider it a hint towards a creator if you like, but you can’t come to such conclusions from the evidence itself. You need to have that assertion in your head before you eve study the evidence, the very problem with ID proponents.


Science has led me to believe that earth is billions of years old as well.  Fossils are difficult to preserve and I agree a lack of evidence proves nothing.  The Cambrian explosion however is positive evidence that is in contradiction with evolution.  

Physicists will back up your first point, that something cannot come from nothing, yes, but not your latter statement. The universe created itself through the continuous cycle of contracting and expanding in an infinite amount of repetitions.


See EMeyers response.  You missed the point -- there must be a start not only to space but time.  Furthermore if time was infinite, then time could never move forward, and your echo would sound at the same time as your voice.

Please expound on your theory. Keeping in mind that something cannot come from nothing therefore there must have always been a ‘something’ outside of time and space.

More or less, he’s just condemning humanity, something any practical naturalist/biologist would logically have to agree with, given the severe destruction of Earth we’re the proximate cause of.


I will leave that as it is. (Feels a little political to me.)

I don’t understand. Is Muller professing a belief that human beings aren’t made up of chemical elements?


No.  It is a funny way to shed light on a much more complicated and sensitive issue of what it means to have a conscious.





-------
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated.
Wilfred Batten Lewis Trotter (1872-1939) English surgeon.

To say that a man is made up of certain chemical elements is a satisfactory description only for those who intend to use him as a fertilizer.
Hermann Joseph Muller (1890-1967) U. S. geneticist. Nobel prize for medicine 1946.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 5:53 PM on December 1, 2005 | IP
thsgoes211

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So are you saying that we have discovered some sort of point of demarcation at the molecular level? What is this point of demarcation and how is it falsified?


I wouldn’t be so bold as to draw an exact line.  However, there does seem to be a boundary of improbability that must be violated in order for the origin of species to occur on a completely naturalistic scale.  The improbability must be taken on a structure by structure, organelle by organelle, cell by cell basis – that when added up definitely become, dare I say? Impossible.


 The amount of “teamwork” involved on the molecular level for a cells to thrive, let along an organism evolve, makes the origin of de novo beneficial mutation (on any grand scale) statistically improbably.

Really?  How do you know this to be true?  Can you show us your math?


I knew that wasn’t the last of that. I would be happy to show my math.

The average bacterial proteosome protein is 267 amino acids long. (Nucleic Acids Res. 2005; 33(10): 3390–3400.)  I picked bacterial because they are on average shorter than eukaryotes and there for the odds are more favorable for evolution.   There are a possible 20 amino acids. (Not counting proper start and stop codons for translation, regulatory sequences for transcription and splice sites for eukaryotic systems.)  So 20^267 is the odds of one protein forming.  However I will cut the odds down so that the protein doesn’t have to be 100% “correct” to work by ½.  Now you have 20^133.5 for a complex of proteins to form like in ATPases, flagellum, and polymerases etc…. (I could name more, just ask.)   You have to multiply that number by its self for however many unique subunits there are.  For a three subunited complex to arrive with only 50% “correct sequence” the odds are:  (20^133.5)^3.  For perspective on these odds, the number of atoms in the Universe is only as many as 6e79.

****Keep in mind you still have the odds of the proteins being properly folded, transported to correct location and that it doesn’t interfer with anything else in the cell.

At what level does Macro-Evolution start and Micro Evolution end? Kingdom? Phylum? Class? We have very compelling evidence that all placental mammals share a common ancestor. Scientists have even created a genetic model for this creature. Furthermore, with the knowledge gleaned from the chimp and human  genomes, we are certain, beyond a shadow of doubt, that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
 

I would put it somewhere between genus and species.  Keep in mind that species is many times a very arbitrary term in a classification system created by man and continually being re-worked.  

Could you tell me this compelling evidence and show me the model that makes us certain “beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

Intelligent as you are using it is a subjective term. The horse's digestive tract does not exhibit the same "design intelligence" as the cow's digestive tract. Was the designer preoccupied with other matters when he designed the horse's gut?

Well, my use of the word "imperfect" is subjective.  But the last time I checked, the only evidence that we have regarding the "designers" of 747s, Rolex watches, the Internet, MTV, The NFL, Parliamentary Governments, Portland Oregon and all other complex systems that we know positively to be designed was that they were designed by humans.  Moreover, even if I were to conclude that most complex natural systems were designed by intelligent beings, I would also have to conclude that in many instances their "designs" are slip-shod--at least by reasonable human standards.  Comparing the digestive tract of a horse to the digestive tract of a cow is like comparing the electrical system of an MGB to the electrical system of a Miata.


God being outside of time and space would mean he would not be “too busy” or “distracted.” One must be careful as you rightfully called yourself out on being “subjective.”   May I suggest a paper to read on this subject.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2136&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage


I would also add that the need for a "being/entity/conscious" is debatable.  At some point in our search for the first cause you might say "it is God" while somebody else might say, "I don't know". For the skeptic searching for a scientific answer (as opposed to peace of mind) you are both saying the same thing.

Some might argue that outside of the 5 senses, knowledge can be gained from introspection--but that's another debate. Your labeling of God as the first cause only prompts the skeptic to ask, "Who created God?"


Please see other responses (Emeyer) dealing with time and the creation of the universe.  I am looking to show the existence of something outside of time and space.  I don’t expect or wish you to believe in a God purely for comfort.   And saying, “I don’t know” without searching for the answer is to stay willingly ignorant.





-------
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated.
Wilfred Batten Lewis Trotter (1872-1939) English surgeon.

To say that a man is made up of certain chemical elements is a satisfactory description only for those who intend to use him as a fertilizer.
Hermann Joseph Muller (1890-1967) U. S. geneticist. Nobel prize for medicine 1946.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 5:54 PM on December 1, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Everything that has a beginning must have a cause".  I've heard this "infinite loop" theory before.  It completely ignores where the matter that is contracting and expanding came from in the first place.


You're missing the point. It came from itself. There was no set beginning. It's a concept of ultimate infinite. There never was nothing. You can just as easily say there was a point when no matter or energy existed as I can say for a deity.

The flagellum is one of the more convincing organelles only because it is one of the better understood.


And:

Again the irreducible part comes from what we do understand.


Oh. The flagellum is merely the easiest of a handful of other complicated metabolic processes. Doesn't change the fact that we still don't fully understand it to begin with.

 For example, see below, the ATP synthase.


First, I’d like to throw out what appears to be a very objective article written on many arguments between ID advocates and critics, just because of it’s attempted objectivity: http://www.idthink.net/biot/flag6/

Here’s another link—a few different models with ATP Synthase: http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~hongwang/ATP_synthase.html

But since it’s hesitant on truly arguing any actual points, I’ve dug for some of many refutations of the assertion that ATP synthase is irreducibly complex.

As promised, I’ve come right back at you with Kenneth R. Miller, a devout Christian himself.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html

I cite:

All bacteria possess a membrane protein complex known as the ATP synthase which uses ion movements to produce ATP. How does the synthase work? It uses the energy of ion movements to produce rotary motion. In short, at least four key elements of the eubacterial flagellum have other selectable functions in the cell that are unrelated to motility.

(Sorry for the big picture below…)



Citing again:

These facts demonstrate that the one system most widely cited as the premier example of irreducible complexity contains individual parts that have selectable functions. What this means, in scientific terms, is that the hypothesis of irreducible complexity is falsified. The Darwinian explanation of complex systems, however, is supported by the same facts.

And further:

Why does the biochemical argument from design collapse so quickly upon close inspection? I would suggest that this is because the logic of the argument itself is flawed. Consider, for example, the mechanical mousetrap as an analogy of irreducibly complex systems. Prof. Behe has written that a mousetrap does not work if even one of its five parts are removed. However, with a little ingenuity, it turns out to be remarkably easy to construct a working mousetrap after removing one of its parts, leaving just four. In fact, Prof. John McDonald of the University of Delaware has taken this several steps further, posting drawings on a web site that show how a mousetrap may be constructed with just three, two, or even just one part. McDonald's mousetrap plans are available at: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

Now, anyone can throw a bunch of quotes together and have someone else argue for them, which is essentially what I’ve done, but there are two key points I’d like to make note of.

One: Yes, at the point many mechanisms are at now, they can’t be reduced… But at the point they very well could have been at, before such parts became as complicated and specified as they are, they were reducible. The mousetrap argument relates directly to this. With an un-built mousetrap, and only four of five pieces, you can still make a functioning mousetrap. The mousetrap built with all five pieces, on the other hand, functions better and more efficiently. You could say it evolved to a higher standard than the previous mousetrap, which was pushed into extinction when it was outperformed by the later mousetrap which evolved a fifth, more-effective piece.

Two: All these irreducibly complex arguments have been thought of approximately nine years ago, if not farther. Miller refuted these arguments roughly five to six years ago.

And just think biologist understand the easiest processes first so imagine what irreducibly complex systems will emerge in the next 20 years.


Unfortunately, the amount of irreducibly complex systems brought to the table annually seems to be decaying exponentially.


In conclusion the more we do discover the more complicated it all becomes and the less likely evolution seems.


That’s nice, but you’re the one with the burden of proof as far as this thread goes. Punching a hole that’s just as easily sealed right back up won’t do a thing.

I don’t want to make it seem as if I’m dodging out of your arguments, so you may certainly continue with the debate over IC, but make your first priority explaining how to falsify Intelligent Design instead.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/1/2005 at 7:37 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 7:10 PM on December 1, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

See EMeyers response.  You missed the point -- there must be a start not only to space but time.  Furthermore if time was infinite, then time could never move forward, and your echo would sound at the same time as your voice.


Guess you’ve never heard of an asymptote. If you prove time is finite, I’ll be glad to attend your Nobel Prize award ceremony.

The universe did not have infinite time, physicists will back me up.

The direct creation of a higher ordered (say genus?) array of creatures is still an option until the burden of proof says otherwise.  So bring on that burden of proof.


No one’s saying Intelligent Design is impossible. Your attempt to slide the burden of proof was clever, though.

And, on the former note, surely not these physicists:

Charles W. Johnson

I cite:

One way to circumvent the dilemma while preserving a definite beginning point for the Universe is to adopt the "oscillating" model of the Universe, which has at times received the support of Stephen Hawking, one of the foremost minds in modern cosmology. In this circular-time model there is an eternal cycle of bang/crunch events, where the "crunched" Universe "bangs" into another.

Hawking, Yulsman, and Turok

I cite:

The hunt for an answer grew more interesting in 1998, when Turok and his Cambridge colleague, Stephen Hawking, announced they had found a way to sidestep the singularity, if not eliminate it entirely. In the process, they said they had arrived at a compellingly simple and complete explanation for how the universe began.
 
Well, not precisely. In Turok and Hawking's mind-bending creation model, the universe has no discrete beginning. Instead, the Cambridge scientists propose a quantum theory of the origin of the universe in which there is no distinction between time and space, and no distinct point at which either can be said to begin.


Okay, now, what physicists do you have? Surely, that wasn’t a bluff. I realize Hawking isn’t the single authority on the matter, but I must admit even surprise on my part I was able to pluck his opinion off Google so quickly.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/1/2005 at 7:22 PM).

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/1/2005 at 11:13 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 7:21 PM on December 1, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wouldn’t be so bold as to draw an exact line.  However, there does seem to be a boundary of improbability that must be violated in order for the origin of species to occur on a completely naturalistic scale.  The improbability must be taken on a structure by structure, organelle by organelle, cell by cell basis – that when added up definitely become, dare I say? Impossible.


Organ by Organ?  Structure by structure? You are just speculating.  Anybody can cherry-pick a point that is beyond the realm of understanding. What is a mystery today maybe common knowledge tommorrow.


I knew that wasn’t the last of that. I would be happy to show my math.

The average bacterial proteosome protein is 267 amino acids long. (Nucleic Acids Res. 2005; 33(10): 3390–3400.)  I picked bacterial because they are on average shorter than eukaryotes and there for the odds are more favorable for evolution.   There are a possible 20 amino acids. (Not counting proper start and stop codons for translation, regulatory sequences for transcription and splice sites for eukaryotic systems.)  So 20^267 is the odds of one protein forming.  However I will cut the odds down so that the protein doesn’t have to be 100% “correct” to work by ½.  Now you have 20^133.5 for a complex of proteins to form like in ATPases, flagellum, and polymerases etc…. (I could name more, just ask.)   You have to multiply that number by its self for however many unique subunits there are.  For a three subunited complex to arrive with only 50% “correct sequence” the odds are:  (20^133.5)^3.  For perspective on these odds, the number of atoms in the Universe is only as many as 6e79.


Please clarify this for me.

Are you using these "numbers" to show that beneficial mutations cannot occur in bacteria? ( Sorry but this looks like one of those bogus abiogenis calculations)

Are your odds based on simutaneous events or sequential events?

Do you have link(s) to a site that explains this?

I would put it somewhere between genus and species.  Keep in mind that species is many times a very arbitrary term in a classification system created by man and continually being re-worked.


And how did you arrive this notion that evolution does not occur above the genus level? Is there some sort of "mechanism" or "barrier" in place that prevents evolution at the "family" or "order" level? What prevents chimps and humans from sharing a common ancestor?  What about leopards and lions? Elephants and mastadons?

Could you tell me this compelling evidence and show me the model that makes us certain “beyond a shadow of a doubt.”


I posted my information on this in the Chimp/human genome thread.  Certain genetic markings shared by chimps and humans prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they share a common ancestor.

Chimp/human genome ERV insertion

God being outside of time and space would mean he would not be “too busy” or “distracted.


This is a Non sequitor. Neither you nor I know what can or cannot occur "outside of space and time". You are speculating again...And you still have not explained why the horse's gut is designed less intelligently than the cow's.


I don’t expect or wish you to believe in a God purely for comfort.   And saying, “I don’t know” without searching for the answer is to stay willingly ignorant.


Actually saying "I don't know" is more honest than saying "God did it". Neither answer holds any scientific value.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:35 PM on December 1, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But in quantum physics, there is no such thing as a precise point — there is an uncertainty to it. To visualize this, imagine that the point is rounded off. (Picture an extreme blow-up of the tip of a ball point pen.) This is just what Hartle and Hawking’s path integral predicted as the most likely configuration for the universe at its birth. Rather than the time dimension (up the side of the cone) beginning at a discrete point, it emerges from the space dimension (around the cone). And just as there is no point on the surface of a sphere like the Earth where one can say the sphere “begins,” there is no distinct point on the hemispherical, rounded-off bottom of the cone where time or space begins. There simply is no starting point, and there is no distinction between space and time — or even past and future.

Dear Entwicke,
  I assume this is what you are referring to.  The problem with this theory is that it only looks good in theory.  Take a cone, put it point down on a flat surface.  There is your singularity, hence your beginning.  Take the "ball-point pen" rounded bottom of Hawking's theory.  Place it round end down on a flat surface.  Again, there is your beginning.   Unless you make the "creation model" a true sphere, there is always a point (rounded or not) that is the beginning.  And, obviously, the true sphere theory of creation doesn't work or someone would've tried it by now.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:07 PM on December 2, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem with this theory is that it only looks good in theory.  Take a cone, put it point down on a flat surface.  There is your singularity, hence your beginning.  Take the "ball-point pen" rounded bottom of Hawking's theory.  Place it round end down on a flat surface.  Again, there is your beginning.   Unless you make the "creation model" a true sphere, there is always a point (rounded or not) that is the beginning.


Incorrect. Once again, I'd like to draw your attention to the mathematical wonder we call the asymptote. It's the point on a graph in which the data is continuously moving torward, but will never actually reach. The same holds true with a ballpoint pen or a cone. There is no one single vertex or hinge on the object that is touching the flat surface of, say, a desk; rather it is the explanation provided by the Theory of Electro Magnetism: that the mass of one solid object's atoms will literally deflect the mass of another. The reason you're able to set a pen down on a desk, of course, is simply that gravity outweighs electro magnetism at this level. But the pen does not actually touch the desk. It is maintained in suspension a very minute distance away from the surface of the desk. So, in essence, there is not one single atom, electron, or even a quark to serve as the base of the whole pen--iit is the magnetic field of the entire ball of the pen that is compelled toward the desk.

Okay, back on topic. I'm not sure if I understand your argument. If I do, that defense stands above. If not, don't bother restating it, as it's pointless for you and me to argue over that odd concept you chose.

What I'd like to see are a list of physicists, astronomers and chemists who can validly disagree with the four math wizards I listed above. I suspect I'll see a large list from Thsgoes211 soon enough, but a legtimate response other than, "Oh please, those guys know their math, but if they'd ever get a life and put the tip of a pen on their desk, they'd realize how silly their ideas are."


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:40 PM on December 2, 2005 | IP
thsgoes211

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh. The flagellum is merely the easiest of a handful of other complicated metabolic processes. Doesn't change the fact that we still don't fully understand it to begin with.


Just because we don’t fully understand it doesn’t mean we can’t learn something from it.  And the more we learn the more details emerge, not subside.  I never said we understood it in it completely.  (I don’t much like the use of sarcasm and sneer italics to ignore the point of my previous post.)

Unfortunately, the amount of irreducibly complex systems brought to the table annually seems to be decaying exponentially


What is your source?!?!

That’s nice, but you’re the one with the burden of proof as far as this thread goes. Punching a hole that’s just as easily sealed right back up won’t do a thing.

I don’t want to make it seem as if I’m dodging out of your arguments, so you may certainly continue with the debate over IC, but make your first priority explaining how to falsify Intelligent Design instead.


How do you figure that I’m the one with the burden of proof?  Your beliefs are what are being taught in school -- so you need to be able to prove that evolution is right.   (I say it is a theory but by no means a fact and therefore its flaws need to be discussed in school.)  Please, show me evidence.

Following quotes from:
SCIENTISTS SHOULD KEEP MINDS OPEN
By: Jay W. Richards & Guillermo Gonzalez
Philadelphia Inquirer
November 21, 2005


“If ID can't be falsified, then scientific evidence can't falsify it.   And if evidence can falsify it, then ID can't be unfalsifiable.”  You answered your own question by showing Miller’s proof.”  (But I will have to address flaws in Miller’s proof in a latter post).

Furthermore “Assum(ing) that no intelligence had anything to do with the origin, history and workings of the universe, and that no design from such intelligence can be detected empirically.” Is dangerous. What  “if intelligence did play a role and its effects are detectable? If we want science to give us knowledge about nature, scientists must be open-minded and not apply materialist blinders to their investigations.”

I would like to continue with the IC/flagellum/ATP synthase debate and I have some rebuttals for the whole beginning of the universe/time blah blah. I want to get my sources in order first and I have finals next week. So if you can be patient I will get them to you on Dec13.

Oh and in answer to your unprovoked dig: yes, I do know what an asymptote is.  I was hoping this forum would consist of informative debates that stayed on the topic and above the belt.



-------
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated.
Wilfred Batten Lewis Trotter (1872-1939) English surgeon.

To say that a man is made up of certain chemical elements is a satisfactory description only for those who intend to use him as a fertilizer.
Hermann Joseph Muller (1890-1967) U. S. geneticist. Nobel prize for medicine 1946.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 4:44 PM on December 2, 2005 | IP
thsgoes211

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Organ by Organ?  Structure by structure? You are just speculating.  Anybody can cherry-pick a point that is beyond the realm of understanding. What is a mystery today maybe common knowledge tommorrow.


You asked me a question that demanded speculation; to draw a finite line as to where evolutions power lie.  What did you want?  I say there are limits and these limits depend on the structure you are looking at.  We don’t know everything so I cannot draw an all-encompassing line for every structure.

Additionally, obviously some complexes function all right with some of their pieces missing. For example the Klenow fragment which is a piece of a polymerase.  It works fine in replicating short pieces of DNA: it lacks it’s 5’->3’ exonuclease activity and it is not as processive and it is separate from other proteins needed for priming the start of synthesis.  But it does replicate DNA in a test tube setting given primers etc.  So that polymerase is somewhat reducible.  However there is a limit to the polymerases simplification.  The Klenow fragment can’t be simplified much beyond without losing all activity.  So there is a line.  

From your car you can remove the power steering and windows, doors, seats and it is still a car.  If you remove the starter, though, it will not work.  There is a line at some point there is a limit to the simplification.  So while the mousetrap works best with five parts, all right with four, it is useless with three.

Can a population of flies become faster flyers: yes.  Can evolution lead to novel morphologies by all scientific accounts: no  (Accounts = scientific evidence not speculation under the dogma of evolution.)

Are you using these "numbers" to show that beneficial mutations cannot occur in bacteria? ( Sorry but this looks like one of those bogus abiogenis calculations)

Are your odds based on simutaneous events or sequential events?

Do you have link(s) to a site that explains this?


The odds are to show the origination of any given/specific protein sequence.  What do you mean by “simutaneous events or sequential events?”  The occurrence of an amino acid is independent of its neighbors and therefore is an independent event with independent odds.  (Think rolling a die with 20 sides)

And how did you arrive this notion that evolution does not occur above the genus level? Is there some sort of "mechanism" or "barrier" in place that prevents evolution at the "family" or "order" level? What prevents chimps and humans from sharing a common ancestor?  What about leopards and lions? Elephants and mastadons?


There is only a physical barrier as far as the irreducibly complexity goes, and the ability for novel morphologies to be sprung.  It is an odds game combined with the inability to genetically trap intermediate mutations that could lead somewhere promising but present no benefit to the current carrier.  

I also took special care to emphasis that the phylogenic tree is man made.  It was originally constructed according to morphology and now is being reworked according to genetic evidence.  What animals look the most similar may not be the most similar genetically.

The problem with the results from genetic evidence is that Bruce Runnegar is estimating the initial divergence of animal phyla at 900-1000 million years and Russel Doolittle at 670 million and Gregory Wray proposing 12000 million years.  This is the difference of 530 million years.  (The same as the time from the Cambrian explosion to the present).  So we are left with the fossil record for proof of evolution.  And the mere presence of similar morphologies among species does not tell of their origin.  You need intermediate species.  Could you please tell me of some?

This is a Non sequitor. Neither you nor I know what can or cannot occur "outside of space and time". You are speculating again...And you still have not explained why the horse's gut is designed less intelligently than the cow's.


You asked “Was the designer preoccupied with other matters when he designed the horse's gut?”  I was simply answering your question.   It is a matter of logic IF God is not a part of time and space he would not be hindered by time (i.e. distractions).  

Did you read the link to the paper I posted?   It deals with your subjective assignment of finding intelligence in design.

Actually saying "I don't know" is more honest than saying "God did it". Neither answer holds any scientific value.


It is ok to admit ignorance; it is not ok to wish to remain there.  I was only saying you should let the facts lead you where they may and not settle with what you know.  This I believe IS the driving force behind science.  (So it does hold some scientific value.)  I say this as a once die-hard atheist.

I will leave off saying I plan to read your link about Human/Chimp genome.  But as I mentioned earlier I gotta go study for finals right now.  I’ll post more later  



-------
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated.
Wilfred Batten Lewis Trotter (1872-1939) English surgeon.

To say that a man is made up of certain chemical elements is a satisfactory description only for those who intend to use him as a fertilizer.
Hermann Joseph Muller (1890-1967) U. S. geneticist. Nobel prize for medicine 1946.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 4:54 PM on December 2, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you figure that I’m the one with the burden of proof?  Your beliefs are what are being taught in school -- so you need to be able to prove that evolution is right.   (I say it is a theory but by no means a fact and therefore its flaws need to be discussed in school.)  Please, show me evidence.


That's for another thread, of which there are plenty.  This thread, on the other hand, is specifically asking how to falsify Intelligent Design. If you can't falsify it, it isn't science, therefore, no matter what, cannot be taught in the scientific classroom. It doesn't even matter if Macroevolution occured. The severe danger in misconstruing the definition of science is that which threatens our very own future. It's not a matter of being fair, of teaching two sides. That's for philosophy. If you're so concerned that your own children will have heads clogged with junk about Darwin, you've got 18 hours in-between every day of school to tell them otherwise, along with two days on the weekend, if not more when school's canceled, and Sunday School every week (assuming you don't attend on Monday, Wednesday, Saturday night, etc, as loads of people in my own county do).

What is your source?!?!


You, among dozens of others on this and various other boards who continue to quote the same old, dry arguments from increduality. Irreducible Complexity is dead. Behe formally introduced it 11 years ago, and it hasn't been any stronger since. If it was bolstering, there would more examples, but such instances are rare.

“If ID can't be falsified, then scientific evidence can't falsify it.   And if evidence can falsify it, then ID can't be unfalsifiable.”  You answered your own question by showing Miller’s proof.


There is no evidence against Intelligent Design. You can logically punch holes in God's "intelligence" but pointing out the numerous counter-intuitive problems in each and every organism on this planet, but that's in reality an invalid argument. God could have made this planet last Thursday-- he could have made the evidence to say otherwise, and through science, we would never be able to conclude this!


Furthermore “Assum(ing) that no intelligence had anything to do with the origin, history and workings of the universe, and that no design from such intelligence can be detected empirically.” Is dangerous. What  “if intelligence did play a role and its effects are detectable? If we want science to give us knowledge about nature, scientists must be open-minded and not apply materialist blinders to their investigations.”


Yet again, you show a very promising ambition to win a trip to Stockholm. I'm serious. If you manage to overturn the very PREMISE for which science has always been used (that is, the study of everything natural through naturalistic means) I will personally divert all my savings to a ticket to Sweden in hopes of perhaps shaking your hand.

[Edit]: It's perfectly fine if you take another two weeks or so to reply. This week has punched out an extraordinary lack of homework, and I can neither promise this caliber of activity for awhile, save the weekends.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/2/2005 at 5:12 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:07 PM on December 2, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ya know, Entwicke, you do absolutely nothing to support my points, you're on the opposite side of the evolution/creation fence from me, and I still can't help but like ya.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:09 PM on December 2, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You asked me a question that demanded speculation; to draw a finite line as to where evolutions power lie.  What did you want?  I say there are limits and these limits depend on the structure you are looking at.  We don’t know everything so I cannot draw an all-encompassing line for every structure.


If it "demands" speculation then it isn't science. It also means you don't have an answer. Assigning vague undefined limits tells me nothing. What happens, for instance when something deemed to be irreduscibly complex is found out not to be? Is the theory then falsified or do you just move the goal posts?

Additionally, obviously some complexes function all right with some of their pieces missing. For example the Klenow fragment which is a piece of a polymerase.  It works fine in replicating short pieces of DNA: it lacks it’s 5’->3’ exonuclease activity and it is not as processive and it is separate from other proteins needed for priming the start of synthesis.  But it does replicate DNA in a test tube setting given primers etc.  So that polymerase is somewhat reducible.  However there is a limit to the polymerases simplification.  The Klenow fragment can’t be simplified much beyond without losing all activity.  So there is a line.


Your reasoning assumes that the system could not have developed from a simpler system that may have served a different purpose.  Could not a working system with 4 pieces all performing specific tasks to accomplish "A" develop from a working system with only 3 of the 4 pieces performing completely different tasks to accomplish "B"?  Isn't this exactly what we see in the fossile record of Triassic therapsids with the the gradual development of ear bones from bones that originally were part of the jaw?

From your car you can remove the power steering and windows, doors, seats and it is still a car.  If you remove the starter, though, it will not work.  There is a line at some point there is a limit to the simplification.  So while the mousetrap works best with five parts, all right with four, it is useless with three.


Interesting analogy. The earliest cars did not have starters as they used other methods to get the combustion cycle started. But they ran.  Newer cars have starters, but can't run with out them.

Can a population of flies become faster flyers: yes.  Can evolution lead to novel morphologies by all scientific accounts: no  (Accounts = scientific evidence not speculation under the dogma of evolution.)


So what prevents a chimp and a human from sharing a common ancestor?  What prevents a rabbit and a guinea pig fron sharing a common ancestor?

The odds are to show the origination of any given/specific protein sequence.  What do you mean by “simutaneous events or sequential events?”  The occurrence of an amino acid is independent of its neighbors and therefore is an independent event with independent odds.  (Think rolling a die with 20 sides)


I don't know what you are trying to show.  I think you are missing some steps. The first protobiont/progenote would have been smaller and preceded by even simpler chemical systems. (from talkorigins)

There is only a physical barrier as far as the irreducibly complexity goes, and the ability for novel morphologies to be sprung.  It is an odds game combined with the inability to genetically trap intermediate mutations that could lead somewhere promising but present no benefit to the current carrier.


What do you mean by "novel morphologies to be sprung"? What odds are you talking about? Are you saying that it's impossible for chimps and humans to have shared a common ancestor?

I also took special care to emphasis that the phylogenic tree is man made.  It was originally constructed according to morphology and now is being reworked according to genetic evidence.  What animals look the most similar may not be the most similar genetically.


Ok...Let's try to be objective without the phylogenic tree.  Let's look at several pairs placental mammals with similar homologies that can't produce offspring with one another (viable or not).

Is there anything that prevents sealions and elephant seals from sharing a common ancestor?

What about wolverines and Badgers?
What about gorillas and orangutangs?  
What about giant pandas and racoons?
How about giant pandas and black bears?

The problem with the results from genetic evidence is that Bruce Runnegar is estimating the initial divergence of animal phyla at 900-1000 million years and Russel Doolittle at 670 million and Gregory Wray proposing 12000 million years.  This is the difference of 530 million years.  (The same as the time from the Cambrian explosion to the present).  So we are left with the fossil record for proof of evolution.
 

The fossil record of placental mammals over the last 200-240 million years provides compelling evidence in support of evolution.

And the mere presence of similar morphologies among species does not tell of their origin.  You need intermediate species.  Could you please tell me of some?


Let see...frogs, salamanders and toads are intemediates between fish and reptiles.  

African lung fish are intermediates between amphibians and fish.

Monotrenes are intermediates between reptiles and mammals.

You asked “Was the designer preoccupied with other matters when he designed the horse's gut?”  I was simply answering your question.   It is a matter of logic IF God is not a part of time and space he would not be hindered by time (i.e. distractions).


Why is it a matter of logic?  Does human logic apply outside of space and time?

At any rate...Why is the horse's gut designed less intelligently then the cow's gut?

Did you read the link to the paper I posted?   It deals with your subjective assignment of finding intelligence in design.

No...hopefully I will find the time this weekend.


It is ok to admit ignorance; it is not ok to wish to remain there.  I was only saying you should let the facts lead you where they may and not settle with what you know.  This I believe IS the driving force behind science.  (So it does hold some scientific value.)  I say this as a once die-hard atheist.

I will leave off saying I plan to read your link about Human/Chimp genome.  But as I mentioned earlier I gotta go study for finals right now.  I’ll post more later


Good luck  



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 11:08 PM on December 2, 2005 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fredguff at 12:44 PM on November 25, 2005 :
 I don't see how "Wow this is too complex for humans to understand right now" qualifies as a scientific answer.  Maybe some ID supporters can help me with this.

Correct me if I'm wrong but how do "holes in the fossil record" or the "Cambrian explosion" support intelligent design by a God any more than they support unintelligent design by a "stoned space alien" or economical design using recycled genetic templates by an "invisible pink unicorn".


Come on IDers put up or shut up!!!

Irred Comp
Great imagination there tough online words too. Darwin said If anything(organ, animal, ya know) could not be gotten to by slight modifications my theory would absolutely fall apart. Behe wanted to demonstrate that somethings are some complex that all had the parts need to be there at once in order to function.

Holes
Darwin said there should be more transitional forms than "standard" forms because of all the slight modifications to get from one to another, the fossil record does not reflect this. It appears that animals are distinct (or created separtely)

Camb Exp
A vast majority of all living phyla "appeared" distinct from one another way to quickly to have evolved(based on Darwin's idea of evolution), then there's a long period of these animals not changing (stasis). Which is exactly what ID believes.

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 04:10 AM on February 18, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Irred Comp
Great imagination there tough online words too. Darwin said If anything(organ, animal, ya know) could not be gotten to by slight modifications my theory would absolutely fall apart. Behe wanted to demonstrate that somethings are some complex that all had the parts need to be there at once in order to function.

Holes
Darwin said there should be more transitional forms than "standard" forms because of all the slight modifications to get from one to another, the fossil record does not reflect this. It appears that animals are distinct (or created separtely)

Camb Exp
A vast majority of all living phyla "appeared" distinct from one another way to quickly to have evolved(based on Darwin's idea of evolution), then there's a long period of these animals not changing (stasis). Which is exactly what ID believes.


The creator of this thread already knew that. We're asking how you can falsify not Evolution, but Intelligent Design. The very reason Evolution is science, is because it can be falsified.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 2:07 PM on February 18, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 2:07 PM on February 18, 2006 :
Irred Comp
Great imagination there tough online words too. Darwin said If anything(organ, animal, ya know) could not be gotten to by slight modifications my theory would absolutely fall apart. Behe wanted to demonstrate that somethings are some complex that all had the parts need to be there at once in order to function.

Holes
Darwin said there should be more transitional forms than "standard" forms because of all the slight modifications to get from one to another, the fossil record does not reflect this. It appears that animals are distinct (or created separtely)

Camb Exp
A vast majority of all living phyla "appeared" distinct from one another way to quickly to have evolved(based on Darwin's idea of evolution), then there's a long period of these animals not changing (stasis). Which is exactly what ID believes.


The creator of this thread already knew that. We're asking how you can falsify not Evolution, but Intelligent Design. The very reason Evolution is science, is because it can be falsified.


Thank you for the update because I did not read all those posts. If you prove Evolution I think by definition it would falsify ID. Specifically, finding the right fossils supporting all the insensibly fine gradations, proving macroevolution, disprove the Big Band and general relativity, it would be a closed case.



 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 02:55 AM on February 19, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 7:21 PM on December 1, 2005 :
See EMeyers response.  You missed the point -- there must be a start not only to space but time.  Furthermore if time was infinite, then time could never move forward, and your echo would sound at the same time as your voice.


Guess you’ve never heard of an asymptote. If you prove time is finite, I’ll be glad to attend your Nobel Prize award ceremony.

As long as the universe is governed by general relativity and the Big Bang was proved empirically, the universe has a beginning. Hawing and Penrose's theorems proved this. Just about every prominent athiestic , non religious physicist believe in both.

The universe did not have infinite time, physicists will back me up.

The direct creation of a higher ordered (say genus?) array of creatures is still an option until the burden of proof says otherwise.  So bring on that burden of proof.


No one’s saying Intelligent Design is impossible. Your attempt to slide the burden of proof was clever, though.

And, on the former note, surely not these physicists:

Charles W. Johnson

I cite:

One way to circumvent the dilemma while preserving a definite beginning point for the Universe is to adopt the "oscillating" model of the Universe, which has at times received the support of Stephen Hawking, one of the foremost minds in modern cosmology. In this circular-time model there is an eternal cycle of bang/crunch events, where the "crunched" Universe "bangs" into another.

All oscillating models have a beginning also, NO one to date(as I know) has made a model that avoids a beginning.

Hawing and Penrose's theorms have proven it is impossible to enter a singularity and enter into a state. And no law of physics can reverse a contracting universe. On a side note, a singularity as a point of INFINITE density, just on that along it makes sense.

In spite of thise Joseph Silk made calculations in his book Big Bang that if you could some how conjure an oscillating model, based on the universes size, it's gone through no more than 100 oscillations, meaning it has a begining.

Hawking, Yulsman, and Turok

I cite:

The hunt for an answer grew more interesting in 1998, when Turok and his Cambridge colleague, Stephen Hawking, announced they had found a way to sidestep the singularity, if not eliminate it entirely. In the process, they said they had arrived at a compellingly simple and complete explanation for how the universe began.
 
Well, not precisely. In Turok and Hawking's mind-bending creation model, the universe has no discrete beginning. Instead, the Cambridge scientists propose a quantum theory of the origin of the universe in which there is no distinction between time and space, and no distinct point at which either can be said to begin.


Okay, now, what physicists do you have? Surely, that wasn’t a bluff. I realize Hawking isn’t the single authority on the matter, but I must admit even surprise on my part I was able to pluck his opinion off Google so quickly.

Actually in the model you are speaking of Hawing uses imaginary numbers to avoid the singularity(and Big Bang). Ofcourse he knows you can not do that for any real world calculation. He even admits he's not describing reality in his book with Penrose The Nature of Space and Time.

In an interview Hawing said he does not believe God created the universe. In A Brief History of Time he says as long as the Universe had a begining we could suppose it had a creator.

The defense rests. . .
(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/1/2005 at 7:22 PM).

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/1/2005 at 11:13 PM).



[b]
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 03:23 AM on February 19, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As long as the universe is governed by general relativity and the Big Bang was proved empirically, the universe has a beginning. Hawing and Penrose's theorems proved this. Just about every prominent athiestic , non religious physicist believe in both.


By no means does the Big Bang make a beginning to the universe anymore reasonable. The Big Bang is part of the cyclic system in which the universe continuously expands, contracts, expands, contracts, etc.

Actually in the model you are speaking of Hawing uses imaginary numbers to avoid the singularity(and Big Bang).


Mind citing where his imaginary numbers are coming from, and where it in any way rules out the Big Bang?

Ofcourse he knows you can not do that for any real world calculation. He even admits he's not describing reality in his book with Penrose The Nature of Space and Time.


None of this is describing reality—not any universe creation model at all. Unlike Evolution, there is very little evidence we can use to look at and say, “This is clearly what happened.” If there was a universe before the Big Bang, the only way I see ourselves able to know that is if we created a theoretical math problem, which at best could only postulate what happened until all other conceivable math problems were disproven. But even then, that'd simply be a weak argument from simple logic, and not scientifically testable. Since the atomic particles of our universe were completely reorganized during the Big Bang, all the past evidence is gone.

Thank you for the update because I did not read all those posts. If you prove Evolution I think by definition it would falsify ID. Specifically, finding the right fossils supporting all the insensibly fine gradations, proving macroevolution, disprove the Big Band and general relativity, it would be a closed case.


It certainly would not. We’ve proven that the Earth is round, and that it revolves around the sun, but we still have Flat Earthists and Heliocentrists moping around, trying to convince uneducated people otherwise. We’ve also proven that Evolution is how we came to be, regardless of how life first arrived. But that doesn’t rule out Intelligent Design.

I could legitimately claim that God created the universe last Thursday, and physically made all the evidence to suggest otherwise. He could have built fraudulent memories into our brains and created the data so that everything indicated the earth has been here for billions of years. This is my point. You cannot falsify Intelligent Design, because it cannot be scientifically measured anymore than Last Thursdayism. All the evidence could indicate beyond any flicker of a doubt that we evolved—like, you know, it does—but that could have merely been God’s doing. Sure, it’s likely not the doing of the God described in any holy book, but it’s a supernatural deity nonetheless.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 2/19/2006 at 11:34 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:32 AM on February 19, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 11:32 AM on February 19, 2006 :
As long as the universe is governed by general relativity and the Big Bang was proved empirically, the universe has a beginning. Hawing and Penrose's theorems proved this. Just about every prominent athiestic , non religious physicist believe in both.


By no means does the Big Bang make a beginning to the universe anymore reasonable. The Big Bang is part of the cyclic system in which the universe continuously expands, contracts, expands, contracts, etc.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSING RESPONSE, I THOUGHT BY CLICKING THE LETTER B IT WOULD MAKE MY ENTIRE POST BOLD, AND THE TYPOS, YOU MAY HAVE MISSED SOME OF MY RESPONSE. . . . . ANYWAY

THE BIG BANG MEANS THE UNIVERSE  CAME INTO EXISTENCE FROM A SINGULARITY ( A POINT OF INFINITE DENSITY AND SPACE-TIME CURVATURE). IN OTHER WORDS, THE UNIVERSE HAS A STARTING POINT. EVERYTHING WE KNOW BREAKS DOWN AT THIS POINT.

WHEN EINSTEIN POSTULATED GENERAL RELAVTIVITY, HE WAS SURPRISED TO FIND OUT THE UNIVERSE WAS EXPANDING ACCORDING TO HIS CALCULATIONS. WHY? BECAUSE IT IMPLIED A BEGINNING.

STEPHEN HAWING ALSO ADMITS THIS IN A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME ANYWHERE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER.

Actually in the model you are speaking of Hawing uses imaginary numbers to avoid the singularity(and Big Bang).


Mind citing where his imaginary numbers are coming from, and where it in any way rules out the Big Bang? THE NATURE OF SPACE AND TIME WRITTEN W ROGER PENROSE

AN IMAGINARY NUMBER IS A MULTIPLE OF THE SQUARE ROOT OF -1. THEY ROUND THINGS OFF.

I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO DEEP BUT EVEN HIS MODEL HAD A BEGINNING, JUST NOT A SINGULARITY(BIG BANG/BEGINING POINT). HIS MODEL RULES OUTS OUT A SINGULARITY BECAUSE HE USES IMAGINARY (ROUNDED OFF)NUMBERS, WHEN HE USES REAL ONES, THE SINGULARITY COMES BACK. HAWING'S MODEL IS LIKE A CONE WITH THE CORNER CUT OFF SO IT DOESN'T GO INTO A POINT AT THE END. I RECKON IT TO WALKING TOWARD THE NORTH POLE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE HEADING SOUTH WITH OUT EVER REACHING THE NORTH POLE. IT SITLL HAS A BEGINING, JUST NOT A BEGINING POINT.

Ofcourse he knows you can not do that for any real world calculation. He even admits he's not describing reality in his book with Penrose The Nature of Space and Time.


None of this is describing reality—not any universe creation model at all. Unlike Evolution, there is very little evidence we can use to look at and say, “This is clearly what happened.” If there was a universe before the Big Bang, the only way I see ourselves able to know that is if we created a theoretical math problem, which at best could only postulate what happened until all other conceivable math problems were disproven. But even then, that'd simply be a weak argument from simple logic, and not scientifically testable. Since the atomic particles of our universe were completely reorganized during the Big Bang, all the past evidence is gone.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, HAWING IS DOES NOT BELIEVE HIS MODEL IS REALISTIC.  IT'S JUST MATHEMATICAL PLAY, MOSTLY BECAUSE OF HIS BELIEFS. AS STATED EARLIER, NEARLY EVERY REPUTABLE, ALL ELITE SCEINCTIST ACCEPT GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THE BIG BANG, REGARDLESS OF BELIEF. GENERAL RELAVITY IS ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT'S MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN.

Thank you for the update because I did not read all those posts. If you prove Evolution I think by definition it would falsify ID. Specifically, finding the right fossils supporting all the insensibly fine gradations, proving macroevolution, disprove the Big Band and general relativity, it would be a closed case.


It certainly would not. We’ve proven that the Earth is round, and that it revolves around the sun, but we still have Flat Earthists and Heliocentrists moping around, trying to convince uneducated people otherwise. We’ve also proven that Evolution is how we came to be, regardless of how life first arrived. But that doesn’t rule out Intelligent Design.

I DIDN'T SAY EVERYONE WOULD BELIEVE IT, JUST THAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE OVERWHELMING AND A CLOSED CASE, ESPECIALLY TO EDUCATED/SENSIBLE PEOPLE LIKE OURSELVES.

I could legitimately claim that God created the universe last Thursday, and physically made all the evidence to suggest otherwise. He could have built fraudulent memories into our brains and created the data so that everything indicated the earth has been here for billions of years. This is my point. You cannot falsify Intelligent Design, because it cannot be scientifically measured anymore than Last Thursdayism. All the evidence could indicate beyond any flicker of a doubt that we evolved—like, you know, it does—but that could have merely been God’s doing. Sure, it’s likely not the doing of the God described in any holy book, but it’s a supernatural deity nonetheless.

I THINK BOTH ARE DIFFICULT TO FALSIFY, BECAUSE THEY COVER SO MUCH GROUND, INCLUDE A LOT OF THEORIES AND PEOPLE WITHIN A CERTAIN SIDE DO NOT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER.

I THINK SOMEONE SHOULD WRITE A BOOK CALLED THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLUTION. GOULD STATED PEOPLE HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME DISPROVING EVOLUTION BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A FLEXIBLE THEORY. WEINGBERG AND DAWKINGS HAVE ADMITTED THAT THINGS LOOK CREATED.

I BELIEVE IT'S ONLY POSSIBLE TO STRONGLY INFER ONE OR THE OTHER IS TRUE. SINCE THEY'RE CATEGORICALLY OPPOSITED IT WOULD DEFER THE OTHER.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 2/19/2006 at 11:34 AM).



[/b][b]
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 8:33 PM on February 19, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.