User Tag List

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2345678 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 171

Thread: The evolution game is up!!!

  1. #61
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    There are not many examples of IC failing although I was just assuming it for the sake of argument. What examples did you have in mind? Hope you don't mind me asking. As long as science is alive and working...
    ID has failed to provide even a single example of irreducible complexity. That's what I'm sayiong- science is working, and in a roundabout way, ID helps further the cause of evolution by pointing out gaps in our understanding. People rush to fill those gaps and science gains by it. The flagellum, the blood clotting cascade. The argument is basically that these systems are so intricate that there couldn't possibly be any way for them to have come about naturally. When a way is discovered they just move the bar a little and start over again. It's not science, but it does help light a fire under the scientific community.

    Christians love science as it was given to us by our Creator. I see no reason for us to hold it for different reasons other than the fact that God gave it to us for investigation of His majesty. Doesn't Darwin come to mind? They've erred many times in arguments such as vestigial organs, junk DNA, wrong mechanisms, fossil record etc. Time and again it is still falling and collapsing but does this necessary make it not science? Should we discard science because people have erred so many times? Even Albert Einstein's theory is incomplete and has it's share of problems. We should go with the theory that is more logical and fits with the data. So far, the flagellum fits perfectly with ID and still stands today. It is perfectly testable since design can be detected...I suppose the question would be whether they really did detect it.
    Design has never been detected. What would design look like? How would it differ from an evolved structure? The theory of evolution has not failed. It has... evolved. ID has not changed- and can't change because its central tenant is completely at odds with science itself. The central statement of evolution, that life as we see it has descended from an ancient common ancestor has remained unchanged. Only the processes surrounding those changes have been revised as our understanding grows.
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  2. #62
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Evoken View Post
    “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations” (Shapiro 1996)

    I found that via Google, in here:

    http://www.trueorigin.org/behe04.asp


    Evo
    So you found a site in which Behe defends Behe? BFHD. Try digging just a little deeper and seeing how the rest of the world of biology responds.
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  3. #63
    Over 500 post club Evoken's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    510
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    So you found a site in which Behe defends Behe? BFHD. Try digging just a little deeper and seeing how the rest of the world of biology responds.
    Nah, you digg now. Show "how the rest of the world of biology" responds. The article I linked to is actually Behe answering the claims made by "the world of biology" against IC.


    Evo

  4. #64
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    484
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  5. #65

  6. #66
    Science Lover
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    South Bend, IN
    Posts
    1,968
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1457
    Quote Originally Posted by SUTG View Post
    A hard time believing in Young Earth creationism, to be specific. YEC is a deluded fantasy with absolutely no evidence.
    Actually what finally impressed me about the simple accounts in scripture about origins is that although they are simple they are sufficiently close to a practical solution as to suggest that they are true. Let me explain.

    1) How did the universe originate and how come we can see distant starlight when the stars are so far away and the universe is so large that any light being emitted at this exact moment would take billions of years to reach us?

    Scripture claims that God not only created the universe but also stretched out the heavens, both events occurring sometime during the 6 days of creation. Interestingly if God stretched out the heavens to their present size in less than a week we would be able to see distant stars because their light would have been stretched out along with everything else in the early universe. How come nomadic sheepherders realized this when it has only been recently that modern astronomers have hypothesized in the Big Bang scenario (inflationary period) that this is what would have happened if the universe had been expanded rapidly? In other words we do not see in our telescopes the light that has been recently emitted, but instead we see the light that was emitted during the initial ultra rapid expansion of the heavens.

    2) How could random mutations, even conceding that Natural Selection culls all failures, generate countless thousands of proteins necessary for even the simplist life to exist? In other words how could the first fully functioning lifeforms even get started?

    Scripture teaches that the first lifeforms were not simple and that they were created in multiple types. Therefore, the diversity we see today in the natural world could build up very rapidly from the original types by the process of sexual recombination and minor changes to already existing regulatory genes. How could nomatic sheepherders realize that this was not only possible, but a more feasible scenario than that offered by the "random mutations plus natural selection" scenario?

    3) The latest hot idea in evolutionary science is called "evo-devo" and imagines that small changes to regulatory genes can cause large effects in the final living forms.

    Evo-devo focuses on regulatory genes and tends to ignores the fact that just turning on a switch is not the entire story. We turn on a switch to start our car, but the question is not so much where the switch came from and how it functions but instead where all the things activated by the switch came from in the first place. This is why it is disingeneous (misleading) to say that evolution does not include abiogenesis. If by abiogenesis one means the first fully functioning lifeform this is really where most of the details of life are at, not merely the switch which activates the car when the ignition switch is turned on.

    So the bottom line is that God created the first fully functioning lifeforms in multiple types of land, sea and air creatures and sexual reproduction and a few minor changes to regulatory genes was able to take it from there in a relatively short period of time. (Do you realize how rapidly people can breed variations of animals to exhibit at a County Fair compared to how many generations would be involved and how long it would take given only "random mutations plus Natural Selection" ?) Yes, mutations can also lead to variation, but the time scale is typically millions of times longer in length. Not a very efficient way for adaptation to react to changes in the environment.
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

  7. #67
    Journeyman JustinFoldsFive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    122
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by macguy
    In fact, many back in those days knew that the earth was round long before Galileo.
    Um, you might want to brush up on your science history. Galileo's claim to fame was not discovering that the Earth was round. Try again.
    "In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the funds advanced to borrowers (assets of the bank) are created by the banks themselves and are not merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of borrowers." - Walker F. Todd

  8. #68
    Old Timer mighty_duck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    portland, or
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by bob b View Post
    Actually what finally impressed me about the simple accounts in scripture about origins is that although they are simple they are sufficiently close to a practical solution as to suggest that they are true. Let me explain.
    So God snapped His invisible fingers, and by magic, everything seemed to work. How could nomadic sheepherders know that magic could account for everything, and still be unquestioned after so long? Amazing how simple and practical that magic solution is!

  9. #69
    Maximeee's Husband death2impiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2307
    Link 1
    I clicked the first link and it doesn't offer any critical analysis of IC just the assertion that it's wrong.

    Link 2
    The second link interprets Behe's argument stating:
    (P1) Direct, gradual evolution proceeds only by stepwise addition of parts.
    (P2) By definition, an irreducibly complex system lacking a part is nonfunctional.
    (C) Therefore, all possible direct gradual evolutionary precursors to an irreducibly complex system must be nonfunctional.
    but wrongly argues...
    Of course, Behe's argument is false since the first premise is false: gradual evolution can also proceed directly by changing or removing parts. Evolution can do much more than just add parts. In contrast, Behe's "irreducible complexity" is restricted to only removing parts. This is why "irreducible complexity" cannot tell us anything useful about how a structure did or did not evolve.
    The author argues that all that needs to be done to solve Behe's dilemna are:
    1)Add a part
    2)Make it necessary
    If this were the mechanism responsible for alleged IC things like eyesight and blood clotting, we should see organisms with quote "Irreducibly complex" components that are obvious evolutionary ancestors, such as an eye missing a part or using a different part to function well enough for eye sight. The concept that Muller puts across assumes that functions like eyesight not only potentially evolved in one large step, but that it potentially evolved from something completely unrelated to eyesight. Eyesight: an evolutionary oops.

    This paper doesn't even attempt to refute any real examples of IC but instead links to an alleged example of a "new IC" related to the decomposition of a wood preservative called Pentachlorophenol. This is a straw man because Irreducible Complexity does not have anything to do with how compounds break down, but how they function. Indeed anything will break down over time if exposed to the elements.

    Link 3
    The next link attempts to refute Behe by refuting his mouse trap example. Another straw-man (that acutally works against evolution) because the mouse-trap unambigiously requires an intelligent designer and only intelligence can alter a mouse trap with it's intended function intact. Anyway, Behe only used this example to illustrate the concept that some things cease to function if you take one part away. When the IC dissenter removed the base and nailed it into the floor, intelligence replaced a necessary part and so, the mouse trap still functions. If a base is completely removed, it will not function. Using Mullers theory, a mouse trap could have evolved from something completely different from a mousetrap. Try taking a baseless moustrap and let me know what you make of the parts.

    Oh and just for fun, this link also attempts to use Junk DNA as an evidence against ID. We now know that all DNA that was once thought to be 'junk' serve a vitally important role. see http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.php

    I'm not going to bother with the other links, I'm sure they're just as erroneous as the first three.
    Last edited by death2impiety; May 21st, 2007 at 05:39 PM.

  10. #70
    Maximeee's Husband death2impiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2307
    Quote Originally Posted by mighty_duck View Post
    So God snapped His invisible fingers, and by magic, everything seemed to work. How could nomadic sheepherders know that magic could account for everything, and still be unquestioned after so long? Amazing how simple and practical that magic solution is!
    A supernatural being brought nature into existance.

    In a similar way, when you see a painting who's creator has died or is not present you do not assume it arrose by natural means. You recognize that it was designed with intelligence. That the order and beauty you see could not have been an accident...well, not all artwork

    The point is, we use natural things to create. We use different colors of oil or compounds to make art work. A supernatural God has more than nature to work with on his creative pallette, He has the ability to call material things into existance.

  11. #71
    Old Timer mighty_duck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    portland, or
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    A supernatural being brought nature into existance.

    In a similar way, when you see a painting who's creator has died or is not present you do not assume it arrose by natural means. You recognize that it was designed with intelligence. That the order and beauty you see could not have been an accident...well, not all artwork

    The point is, we use natural things to create. We use different colors of oil or compounds to make art work. A supernatural God has more than nature to work with on his creative pallette, He has the ability to call material things into existance.
    First, I was responding to Bob, who was marveling that magic seems to be able to account for things. Amazing! Magic can account for anything.

    Second, when we see a painting, we recognize it as ARTIFICIAL. From there, and knowing that man-made objects are made by intelligent agents, we can establish purpose or design.

    But even then, we may be at a loss. If you observe a computer algorithm, one that seems to give "intelligent" results, how would you know if it was designed or evolved (using genetic algorithms)? You may claim that even an evolved algorithm was ultimately designed, but that would also mean that ID and evolution can easily co-exist.

    Evolution does not rule out a deist or ID god. Heck, It doesn't even rule out the Christian God unless a couple of chapters in Genesis are taken literally. Therefore using apparent design to counter evolution is a losing battle.

  12. #72
    Maximeee's Husband death2impiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2307
    Quote Originally Posted by mighty_duck View Post
    First, I was responding to Bob, who was marveling that magic seems to be able to account for things. Amazing! Magic can account for anything.
    Please forgive my intrusion

    Second, when we see a painting, we recognize it as ARTIFICIAL. From there, and knowing that man-made objects are made by intelligent agents, we can establish purpose or design.
    Do you reject the concept that paintings are the result of intelligent design?

    But even then, we may be at a loss. If you observe a computer algorithm, one that seems to give "intelligent" results, how would you know if it was designed or evolved (using genetic algorithms)? You may claim that even an evolved algorithm was ultimately designed, but that would also mean that ID and evolution can easily co-exist.
    Do you deny that computer algorithms are the result of intelligent design?

    Evolution does not rule out a deist or ID god. Heck, It doesn't even rule out the Christian God unless a couple of chapters in Genesis are taken literally. Therefore using apparent design to counter evolution is a losing battle.
    Evolution is a horribly inadequate explaination for the complexity we see around us. It doesn't matter that it doesn't rule out God. It's plainly stupid.

  13. #73
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    Link 1
    I only clicked the first link and it doesn't offer any critical analysis of IC just the assertion that it's wrong.
    It provides a nice overview of the topic.
    Link 2

    The second link interprets Behe's argument stating:


    but wrongly argues...


    The author argues that all that needs to be done to solve Behe's dilemna are:
    1)Add a part
    2)Make it necessary
    If this were the mechanism responsible for alleged IC things like eyesight and blood clotting, we should see organisms with quote "Irreducibly complex" components that are obvious evolutionary ancestors, such as an eye missing a part or using a different part to function well enough for eye sight. The concept that Muller puts across assumes that functions like eyesight not only potentially evolved in one large step, but that it potentially evolved from something completely unrelated to eyesight. Eyesight: an evolutionary oops.
    The evolution of the eye has happened multiple times so that not only do we have examples of varying degrees of complexity going all the way back to simple photosensitive eyespots we also have examples of branches that took seperate paths of evolution. It is not IC.
    This paper doesn't even attempt to refute any real examples of IC but instead links to an alleged example of a "new IC" related to the decomposition of a wood preservative called Pentachlorophenol. This is a straw man because Irreducible Complexity does not have anything to do with how compounds break down, but how they function. Indeed anything will break down over time if exposed to the elements.
    It explains how a seemingly IC ability to break down a chemical was evolved. Your argument is absurd. You can't use an example involving digestion- anything could become digested! What is a legitimate example of IC, then?
    Link 3
    The next link attempts to refute Behe by refuting his mouse trap example. Another straw-man (that acutally works against evolution) because the mouse-trap unambigiously requires an intelligent designer and only intelligence can alter a mouse trap with it's intended function intact. Anyway, Behe only used this example to illustrate the concept that some things cease to function if you take one part away. When the IC dissenter removed the base and nailed it into the floor, intelligence replaced a necessary part and so, the mouse trap still functions. If a base is completely removed, it will not function. Using Mullers theory, a mouse trap could have evolved from something completely different from a mousetrap. Try taking a baseless moustrap and let me know what you make of the parts.
    Just curious- but did you bother to read the article? It answers those questions.
    Oh and just for fun, this link also attempts to use Junk DNA as an evidence against ID. We now know that all DNA that was once thought to be 'junk' serve a vitally important role. see http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.php
    We don't "know" that. The role junk DNA plays is being reexamined, but let's not go bonkers, ok? Even so- I'm not sure how you think finding some level of functionality in junk DNA would help the IC argument. As for ID, I think its a neutral issue. God could have hypothetically created life with as much or as little junk DNA as he chose. What does evolution say? Not much really. Evolution is about what survives, and that could be a useful trait or a length of meaningless code that does nothing. Nature seems to streamiline things, to trim the fat, so it wouldn't surprise me to see some functionality in even seemingly useless features because even a small survival advantage can make a difference over time.
    I'm not going to bother with the other links, I'm sure they're just as erroneous as the first three.
    Seems to me like you didn't really bother with the first three, either.
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  14. #74
    Old Timer mighty_duck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    portland, or
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    Please forgive my intrusion
    No need to apologize. This is TOL after all

    My answer was directed at the evocation of magic as an acceptable explanation that "works", not against the possibility of a supernatural being.

    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    Do you reject the concept that paintings are the result of intelligent design?
    Of course not. But the reason is that we first recognize paintings as artificial.

    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    Do you deny that computer algorithms are the result of intelligent design?
    There are genetic algorithms that are capable of evolving. As observers, we would have a hard time telling a "designed" algorithm from an "evolved" one.

    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    Evolution is a horribly inadequate explaination for the complexity we see around us. It doesn't matter that it doesn't rule out God. It's plainly stupid.
    Thousands and thousands of biologists of all stripes disagree with you. Could it be that they looked in to the issue a bit more closely than you have?

    If it doesn't matter about god, then why bring out the design argument? The design argument is a method of "inferring" god, not of disproving evolution.

    Maybe you could tell us what exactly is inadequate?

  15. #75
    Maximeee's Husband death2impiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2307
    Quote Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    The evolution of the eye has happened multiple times so that not only do we have examples of varying degrees of complexity going all the way back to simple photosensitive eyespots we also have examples of branches that took seperate paths of evolution. It is not IC.
    Cite sources.

    It explains how a seemingly IC ability to break down a chemical was evolved.
    It doesn't explain how an ability evolved, it asserts that it did. And merely explains the process of the decomposition.

    We don't "know" that. The role junk DNA plays is being reexamined, but let's not go bonkers, ok? Even so- I'm not sure how you think finding some level of functionality in junk DNA would help the IC argument.
    I didn't say that it was related to IC, but that the paper also uses junk dna as evidence against ID and I pointed out that that theory has been and is in the process of being debunked.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us