Chimps are 98.5% human. (NOT)

hatsoff

New member
Clete said:
If any one part of a bat's sonar system is missing the whole damn thing is worthless and the bat runs slap-bang into every tree it gets near and is completely unable to feed itself.

Sure, but that's not how evolution works. Bats did not come into being by starting with one part, then adding another, another and so on until the whole bat was ready to go. Evolution involves complex changes and subtractions, not just simple additions.

If a single tiny little piece of a bacterial flagellum isn't present performing its function flawlessly, the bacterium is immobilized and the flagellum is a big fat waste of biological resources which took 30 interacting proteins to build and 20 more to help assemble every one of which was essential to the task.

The bacterial flagellum is a unique organism because it was specifically cited by Behe, along with two other biological systems, as being irreducibly complex. Behe has since been proven wrong in both of the other cases. The bacterial flagellum remains a mystery at the moment, but a few models have been proposed which have some promise. Of course, it should be stressed that just because we don't know exactly *how* a system evolved doesn't mean that it didn't evolve.

If any minute part of the blood pressure regulatory system in the head of a giraffe stops functioning all the blood vessels in the giraffe's head go POP the first time it bends over to take a drink.

See above about bats.

THIS IS WHY THEY CALL THE SYSTEMS IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!!!

Only a few fringe scientists--all of whom just happen to be Christians (or subscribe to some other creationist religion)--have called any biological system irreducibly complex. Mainstream science rejects the idea in favor of evolution.

It means that the systems are complex (in some cases wildly so) but are at the same time as simple as they can possibly be and still function AT ALL.

Few if any organisms are as simple as they could possibly be. The human body is a perfect example, with our hair, wisdom teeth and appendix, among other needless biological devices.

If a biological system does not function then it gives no survival advantage to the organism and thus no way for natural selection to preserve the non-functioning system.

Natural selection involves more than just "survival advantage." In any case, evolution does not usually allow for non-functioning systems, though it does for non-functioning components.

A flagellum that is only partly there is totally invisible to natural selection and thus evolution cannot account for any such irreducibly complex biological system.

Again, it is not irreducibly complex.

It's not that it hasn't explained it YET, it's that it CANNOT explain it - period. The whole nature of evolutionary theory would actual predict that no such system exists, which is a point that Darwin spent some considerable amount of time talking about and even went so far as to say that if any such system where found in nature that it would falsify his theory. The problem is that modern science simply tweaks whatever part of either the evidence or the theory it needs to tweak in order for the problem to go away and have thus turned Evolution into an unfalsifiable religion instead of science.

Again, you're making unfounded conspiracy claims. Scientists don't ignore ID or IC, they discredit it.
 
Last edited:

Evoken

New member
hatsoff said:
The bacterial flagellum remains a mystery at the moment, but a few models have been proposed which have some promise. Of course, it should be stressed that just because we don't know exactly *how* a system evolved doesn't mean that it didn't evolve.

True and one may wonder if it did not evolve thru evolutionary processes, then how did it come to be? William Dembski, a proponent of Intelligent Design says:

The proper question is not how often or at what places a designing intelligence intervenes but rather at what points do signs of intelligence first become evident. Intelligent design therefore makes an epistemological rather than ontological point. To understand the difference, imagine a computer program that outputs alphanumeric characters on a computer screen. The program runs for a long time and throughout that time outputs what look like random characters. Then abruptly the output changes and the program outputs the most sublime poetry. Now, at what point did a designing intelligence intervene in the output of the program? Clearly, this question misses the mark because the program is deterministic and simply outputs whatever the program dictates.

There was no intervention at all that changed the output of the program from random gibberish to sublime poetry. And yet, the point at which the program starts to output sublime poetry is the point at which we realize that the output is designed and not random. Moreover, it is at that point that we realize that the program itself is designed. But when and where was design introduced into the program? Although this is an interesting question, it is ultimately irrelevant to the more fundamental question whether there was design in the program and its output in the first place. We can tell whether there was design (this is ID's epistemological point) without introducing any doctrine of intervention (ID refuses to speculate about the ontology of design)

Intelligent design is not a theory about the frequency or locality at which a designing intelligence intervenes in the material world. It is not an interventionist theory at all. Indeed, intelligent design is perfectly compatible with all the design in the world being front-loaded in the sense that all design was introduced at the beginning (say at the Big Bang) and then came to expression subsequently over the course of natural history much as a computer program's output becomes evident only when the program is run. This actually is an old idea, and one that Charles Babbage, the inventor of the digital computer, explored in the 1830s in his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise (thus predating Darwin's Origin of Species by twenty years).

Let's be clear, however, that such preprogrammed evolution would be very different from evolution as it is now conceived. Evolution, as currently presented in biology textbooks, is blind -- nonpurposive material mechanisms run the show. Within this naturalistic conception of evolution, the origin of any species gives no evidence of actual design because mindless material mechanisms do all the work. Within a preprogrammed conception of evolution, by contrast, the origin of some species and biological structures would give evidence of actual design and demonstrate the inadequacy of material mechanisms to do such design work. Thus naturalistic evolution and preprogrammed evolution would have different empirical content and be distinct scientific theories.

Of course, such preprogrammed evolution or front-loaded design is not the only option for the theory of intelligent design. Intelligent design is also compatible with discrete interventions at intermittent times and diverse places. Intelligent design is even compatible with what philosophers call an occasionalist view in which everything that occurs in the world is the intended outcome of a designing intelligence but only some of those outcomes show clear signs of being designed. In that case the distinction between natural causes and intelligent causes would concern the way we make sense of the world rather than how the world actually is (another case of epistemology and ontology diverging).

We may never be able to tell how often or at what places a designing intelligence intervened in the world or even whether there was any intervention in Miller's sense of violating natural laws. But that's okay. What's crucial for the theory of intelligent design is the ability to identify signs of intelligence in the world -- and in the biological world in particular -- and therewith conclude that a designing intelligence played an indispensable role in the formation of some object or the occurrence of some event. That is the start. Often in biology there will be clear times and locations where we can say that design first became evident. But whether that means a designing intelligence actually intervened at those points will require further investigation and may indeed not be answerable. As the computer analogy above indicates, the place and time at which design first becomes evident need have no connection with the place and time at which design was actually introduced."


From here:
http://www.refcm.org/RICDiscussions/Science-Scripture/X Evolution/still_spinning_just_fine.htm

Dembski does not denies that thins Evolved as evolution claim they did. What he is against is to it Evolving without any sort of programing in the beggining or guidence.

So, the processes by which things evolved are the same, Dembski is just against they being unguided (something he calls unintelligent evolution these days). The Flagellum did evolve thru evolutinary means, but they were directed and/or programed in the beggining ot occur. That is Intelligent Design in a nutshell, which is more or less the same as Theistic Evolution.


Valz
 
Last edited:

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Valz said:
This has been demonstrated to be false already. see:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html
Agreed, but what most IC proponents do is that they ignore the fact that individual parts can often change functions.
Why do you assert that it cannot explain it? The point still remains that if any complex system could not have evolved thru gradual sucessive steps then this would pose a fatal problem to Evolution. But such system has not been found, the systems that are advanced as IC are not IC on closer inspection and their Evolution is possible.
Now, the problem I see for Evolution with this issue is that organs do not get fossilized. because of this there is no and there CANNOT be any fossil evidence showing the gradual Evolution of the flagellum (or any other organism), this is also the case for all invertebrate animals (another issue for Evolution). That being the case, Evolution is limited on relying on genetic similartiies and on looking for a more simple variation of a flagellum in nature in order ot evolve from it into the most complex one.
It is quite easy to find something like a simple eye in nature and imagine a pathway by which a more complex and sophisticated eye came to be. But without the fossil evidence to support the individual steps (other than more examples from nature) and without any real live demonstrations of it taking place, the proposed pathways cannot be considered as anything higher than an hypothesis and remain as quite speculative as well.
Valz

I am really puzzled as to why you would post the Ken Miller article as proof that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

There is absolutely nothing in the article that pertains to the irreducibly complex argument unless you believe that the fact that some of the proteins used in the flagellum are also made use of in systems with far different functions is a compelling argument against Behe's thesis..

This fact, that the same proteins are used in many different subfunctions of organisms has been known for at least 20 years.

Would we assume that because two different programs, say a word processor and a spreadsheet, make use of common basic subroutines that they were derived from a common source? Of course not, but that is the essence of the argument which supposedly proves that irreducible complexity is false.

Then why do people like Ken Miller believe so ardently that similar proteins in different creatures is some sort of proof that they were derived from a common ancestor or that a simpler subsystem, which performs an entirely different function, must have somehow been "coopted" in some manner to start the construction of a bacterial flagellum?

The answer must be that he, like many others, are compelled to do so by their religious beliefs, as Ann Coulter has pointed out so convincingly in her book, "Godless", the last 5 chapters (out of 11 in the book) which are devoted mainly to biological topics, primarily evolution.

The tragedy is that nominal Christians have become so convinced of the lies of the evolutionary religion that they have turned their backs on the foundations of their faith and instead compromised with an essentially godless faith, one which is intellectually bankrupt.

They are the "Quislings" of this generation (look it up).
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Valz,

To follow up on the Matzke article you linked to I found Dembski's rebuttal.

It starts out as follows:

On October 11, 2003, the Talk Reason website posted an article by Nicholas Matzke titled "Evolution in (Brownian) Space: A Model for the Origin of the Bacterial Flagellum" (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/flagellum.cfm). Talk Reason advertises itself as a website that "presents a collection of articles which aim to defend genuine science from numerous attempts by the new crop of creationists to replace it with theistic pseudo-science under various disguises and names." The most obvious target here is intelligent design. Indeed, Matzke's article attempts to rebut one of the main challenges that intelligent design has raised against Darwinian evolution, namely, how to explain the emergence of irreducibly complex biochemical machines like the bacterial flagellum.

Before reviewing and critiquing Matzke's article, I want to offer a few remarks about Matzke himself and my past interactions with him. Matzke's day job is as a geography graduate student at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Nonetheless, he is also one of the most active participants in online discussions concerning evolution and intelligent design (the sheer volume of text that he is able to generate is remarkable). In such forums, he tends to go by various pseudonyms. His main one until a year or two ago, when he blew his cover by publicly attacking Jonathan Wells at UCSD, was "Nic Tamzek." On the ARN bulletin board (www.arn.org) he has used "Niiicholas." On the ISCID bulletin board (www.iscid.org), through which I know him best, he goes by "Yersinia." He uses still other pseudonyms in other forums (as in the Talk Origins newsgroup).

Matzke's interest in intelligent design and evolution goes back at least to his undergraduate days at Valparaiso University, a Christian school in Indiana. As far back as 1996 (and perhaps earlier) he was posting online in the American Scientific Affiliation's evolution discussion forum. All these discussions are archived, and it appears that at the time Matzke was still keeping his options open about where he would come down in the debate over biological origins. In the last four years or so, however, his views have ossified so that his defense of Darwinian evolution and his attacks on intelligent design have become unswerving if not predictable.

I learned of Matzke's latest article through a New Zealand biochemist named Robert Mann. Mann maintains an Internet mailing list critical of intelligent design. Like many, Mann worries that intelligent design, in claiming to show that biological systems exhibit signs of intelligence that lie beyond the reach of the Darwinian mechanism, is committing an argument from ignorance. Thus, in his most recent email to me, he wrote, "Admittedly, the submicroscopic details of the flagellum, or a fortiori the chloroplast, remain unexplained by neo-Darwinian theory. The logical gist of IDT is a 'designer of the gaps' inference from lack (pro tem) of scientific knowledge. This is open to getting filled in, as a neophyte has recently suggested at http://talkreason.org/articles/flagellum.cfm." The neophyte Mann cites is Nicholas Matzke.

So has Matzke in fact filled in the gaps that intelligent design claims are insurmountable for the Darwinian selection mechanism? In particular, has he provided a detailed, testable, step-by-step Darwinian model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum? Matzke claims that he has. Thus we read at the beginning of his article: "This article will propose a detailed model for the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum." And at the end of his article we read: "Finally, in light of the organized complexity and apparent 'design' of the flagellum, the very fact that a step-by-step Darwinian model can be constructed that is plausible and testable significantly weakens the suggestion that extraordinary explanations [read intelligent design] might be required."

In fact, such claims by Matzke about what his article is supposed to have demonstrated are highly misleading. Matzke at one point in his article refers to the bacterial flagellum as an "icon of intelligent design." Certainly it's understandable (and even commendable) that as a Darwinian he should want to knock this icon down. But to do so he must make good on his claim to provide a detailed, testable, step-by-step Darwinian model of how the bacterial flagellum could have originated. Unfortunately for him, that claim is false under any reasonable construal of the terms "detailed," "testable," and "step-by-step." The further claim that he has significantly undercut intelligent design is therefore false as well.

The rest of Dembski's long article is found on the ARN website. http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_biologusubjunctive.htm

BTW, Matzke's effort is among the best I have seen so far attempting to explain how a simpler function which does something entirely different might be able to morph into a bacterial flagellum. Quite a feat for such a young and inexperienced geography major.

At least he gave it a good try, which is more than Ken Miller and others have done.
 

hatsoff

New member
Before I came to this forum, I had no idea how many laypersons believed in literal creationism. The number is shocking! A 1997 poll suggests that as many as 44% of the general population rejects evolution in favor of religious beliefs. The distrust of science on their part is absolutely astounding. And now that I am dealing directly with those who reject evolution, I get to see for the first time how that denial comes about.

In responding to these arguments, I came upon an interesting web page I'd like to share: "Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution" It is a fascinating read. The point of the article is to answer an evolutionist challenge sent via email: "can you name one scientist who (a) is not a "Bible Literalist" and who (b) rejects evolution and supports the "young earth" hypothesis?" Before even getting to that challenge, however, the article gives a lengthy introduction about why credentials don't make much of a difference. It eventually mentions the challenge, then continues by suggesting via magazing poll data that anti-evolutionism is gaining strength in the scientific community. It then goes on to explain that high school teachers and engineers should be considered evolution experts. After that, the author veers even further off-topic as he plugs a published collection of essays in support of creationism. Finally, in the very last section of the article, the challenge is met: the author provides the name of one scientist, who, rather than a Christian creationist, happens to be an Islamic creationist. The last few paragraphs are spent accusing evolutionists of "[dragging] religion into the discussion."

The article is typical creationist propaganda. It takes a key issue and, rather than addressing it directly, attempts to misdirect attention. In the end, while the quoted challenge is technically met, the author is unable to refute its meaning: that anti-evolutionism is a product of faith-based religious dogma.

Sad, that.
 

Evoken

New member
From Dembski's rebuttal said:
But to do so he must make good on his claim to provide a detailed, testable, step-by-step Darwinian model of how the bacterial flagellum could have originated.

Yes bob b, I am aware of Dembski's idea of a "detailed, testable, step-by-step" model. He only aims at being a nuisance when it comes to this, demanding an insane level of detail that is impossible to meet.

If Evolution provides an account that goes like: 1-2-3-4-5...

Then Dembski says: That's not a detailed step-by-step model!!

If Evolution then tries to do it like: 1-1.5-2-2.5-3-3.5...

Then Dembski says: That's not a detailed step-by-step model!!

If Evolution then tries to do it like: 1-1.25-1.5-1.75-2-2.25-2.5-2.75-3-3.25...

Then Dembski says the same.

In the end he demands an insane level of detail that is impossible to meet, and then he wants to argue that Evolution is false because it cannot account for the insane level of detail he demands? Excuse me if I don't buy it. Are we to assume that he has this rigurous (and quite unfair I must add) detailed step-by-step account he demands for how and why the Intelligent Designer made the flagellum? I bet you he does not, then why the double standard and bias against Evolution?


Valz
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Valz said:
Yes bob b, I am aware of Dembski's idea of a "detailed, testable, step-by-step" model. He only aims at being a nuisance when it comes to this, demanding an insane level of detail that is impossible to meet.

If Evolution provides an account that goes like: 1-2-3-4-5...

Then Dembski says: That's not a detailed step-by-step model!!

If Evolution then tries to do it like: 1-1.5-2-2.5-3-3.5...

Then Dembski says: That's not a detailed step-by-step model!!

If Evolution then tries to do it like: 1-1.25-1.5-1.75-2-2.25-2.5-2.75-3-3.25...

Then Dembski says the same.

In the end he demands an insane level of detail that is impossible to meet, and then he wants to argue that Evolution is false because it cannot account for the insane level of detail he demands? Excuse me if I don't buy it. Are we to assume that he has this rigurous (and quite unfair I must add) detailed step-by-step account he demands for how and why the Intelligent Designer made the flagellum? I bet you he does not, then why the double standard and bias against Evolution?


Valz

Dembski is not being unreasonable if people are going to use a "possible" scenario to claim that IC is not true.

The best that can be said about "plausible" scenarios is they might possibly be true. Until someone is able to demonstrate experimentally that each step is in fact possible, the scenario remains a conjecture, and should not be advanced to support a claim that IC has been shown to be false.

In the case of God, do you really expect someone to know why God has done something? We can hypothesize, but that is surely not the same thing.

There is no double standard as far as Christians are concerned. Evolutionists teach that God is not necessary, Mother Nature did it.

There is a good reason that almost all leading biologists are atheists and are effectively reproducing themselves due to their stature in the field and their control of the educational apparatus. Instead of worshipping the Creator they worship the creation as the pagans do.

St. Paul nailed it when he said that we struggle against principalities and powers in high places.

Theistic evolutionists have been deceived into believing the lie that all life has descended by natural means from a hypothetical primitive protocell. Tacking the lame excuse that "God guided it" onto the basic lie is no substitute for the truth.

Don't follow their path of becoming a Quisling.

-----------------------------
BTW, my conjecture is that the flagellum was designed to permit mobility. ;)
 

Jukia

New member
Clete said:
If what you posted was valid science it would seem to indicate that the chromosomes in question are THE genetic difference between Chimps and Humans (or at least the most important one. If this is so then all one would need to do to test the theory would be to take a fertilized Chimp egg and splice the appropriate genes together and see if a Human or something closer to being Human was the result.

How much would you like to bet on whether any such experiment would have a positive result?

Resting in Him,
Clete
A fertilized chimp egg, and put human genes into it? Assuming you could overcome the technical difficulties do you see any ethical issues???
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jukia said:
A fertilized chimp egg, and put human genes into it? Assuming you could overcome the technical difficulties do you see any ethical issues???

Ethics is academic at this point, since similar things are already being done with the approval of the biological community.

It's all done in the name of research to increase knowledge, and supposedly to eventually improve people's lives.

Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy
Maryann Mott, National Geographic News, January 25, 2005
Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras—a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal.

Chinese scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University in 2003 successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs. The embryos were reportedly the first human-animal chimeras successfully created. They were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory dish before the scientists destroyed the embryos to harvest their stem cells.

In Minnesota last year researchers at the Mayo Clinic created pigs with human blood flowing through their bodies.

And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.

Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans.

Watching how human cells mature and interact in a living creature may also lead to the discoveries of new medical treatments.

But creating human-animal chimeras—named after a monster in Greek mythology that had a lion's head, goat's body, and serpent's tail—has raised troubling questions: What new subhuman combination should be produced and for what purpose? At what point would it be considered human? And what rights, if any, should it have?

There are currently no U.S. federal laws that address these issues.

Ethical Guidelines

The National Academy of Sciences, which advises the U.S. government, has been studying the issue. In March it plans to present voluntary ethical guidelines for researchers.

A chimera is a mixture of two or more species in one body. Not all are considered troubling, though.

For example, faulty human heart valves are routinely replaced with ones taken from cows and pigs. The surgery—which makes the recipient a human-animal chimera—is widely accepted. And for years scientists have added human genes to bacteria and farm animals.

What's caused the uproar is the mixing of human stem cells with embryonic animals to create new species.

Biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin is opposed to crossing species boundaries, because he believes animals have the right to exist without being tampered with or crossed with another species.

Hinted at by Worm Study

He concedes that these studies would lead to some medical breakthroughs. Still, they should not be done.

"There are other ways to advance medicine and human health besides going out into the strange, brave new world of chimeric animals," Rifkin said, adding that sophisticated computer models can substitute for experimentation on live animals.

"One doesn't have to be religious or into animal rights to think this doesn't make sense," he continued. "It's the scientists who want to do this. They've now gone over the edge into the pathological domain."

David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University, believes the real worry is whether or not chimeras will be put to uses that are problematic, risky, or dangerous.

Human Born to Mice Parents?

For example, an experiment that would raise concerns, he said, is genetically engineering mice to produce human sperm and eggs, then doing in vitro fertilization to produce a child whose parents are a pair of mice.

"Most people would find that problematic," Magnus said, "but those uses are bizarre and not, to the best of my knowledge, anything that anybody is remotely contemplating. Most uses of chimeras are actually much more relevant to practical concerns."

Last year Canada passed the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, which bans chimeras. Specifically, it prohibits transferring a nonhuman cell into a human embryo and putting human cells into a nonhuman embryo.

Cynthia Cohen is a member of Canada's Stem Cell Oversight Committee, which oversees research protocols to ensure they are in accordance with the new guidelines.

She believes a ban should also be put into place in the U.S.

Creating chimeras, she said, by mixing human and animal gametes (sperms and eggs) or transferring reproductive cells, diminishes human dignity.

"It would deny that there is something distinctive and valuable about human beings that ought to be honored and protected," said Cohen, who is also the senior research fellow at Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute of Ethics in Washington, D.C.

But, she noted, the wording on such a ban needs to be developed carefully. It shouldn't outlaw ethical and legitimate experiments—such as transferring a limited number of adult human stem cells into animal embryos in order to learn how they proliferate and grow during the prenatal period.

Irv Weissman, director of Stanford University's Institute of Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine in California, is against a ban in the United States.

"Anybody who puts their own moral guidance in the way of this biomedical science, where they want to impose their will—not just be part of an argument—if that leads to a ban or moratorium. … they are stopping research that would save human lives," he said.

Mice With Human Brains

Weissman has already created mice with brains that are about one percent human.

Later this year he may conduct another experiment where the mice have 100 percent human brains. This would be done, he said, by injecting human neurons into the brains of embryonic mice.

Before being born, the mice would be killed and dissected to see if the architecture of a human brain had formed. If it did, he'd look for traces of human cognitive behavior.

Weissman said he's not a mad scientist trying to create a human in an animal body. He hopes the experiment leads to a better understanding of how the brain works, which would be useful in treating diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease.

The test has not yet begun. Weissman is waiting to read the National Academy's report, due out in March.
 
Last edited:

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
hatsoff said:
Before I came to this forum, I had no idea how many laypersons believed in literal creationism. The number is shocking! A 1997 poll suggests that as many as 44% of the general population rejects evolution in favor of religious beliefs. The distrust of science on their part is absolutely astounding. And now that I am dealing directly with those who reject evolution, I get to see for the first time how that denial comes about.

In responding to these arguments, I came upon an interesting web page I'd like to share: "Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution" It is a fascinating read. The point of the article is to answer an evolutionist challenge sent via email: "can you name one scientist who (a) is not a "Bible Literalist" and who (b) rejects evolution and supports the "young earth" hypothesis?" Before even getting to that challenge, however, the article gives a lengthy introduction about why credentials don't make much of a difference. It eventually mentions the challenge, then continues by suggesting via magazing poll data that anti-evolutionism is gaining strength in the scientific community. It then goes on to explain that high school teachers and engineers should be considered evolution experts. After that, the author veers even further off-topic as he plugs a published collection of essays in support of creationism. Finally, in the very last section of the article, the challenge is met: the author provides the name of one scientist, who, rather than a Christian creationist, happens to be an Islamic creationist. The last few paragraphs are spent accusing evolutionists of "[dragging] religion into the discussion."

The article is typical creationist propaganda. It takes a key issue and, rather than addressing it directly, attempts to misdirect attention. In the end, while the quoted challenge is technically met, the author is unable to refute its meaning: that anti-evolutionism is a product of faith-based religious dogma.

Sad, that.

The quality of an anti-evolution article on the Web has little to do with whether all life on Earth evolved from slime or not. You might wish to stick to scientific arguments here if you wish to avoid being lumped with the very website you despise.

However, it was interesting to hear that most people reject evolutionary fairy tales, probably because it is not that hard these days to spot them for what they are, thanks to the fact that the information monopoly has been broken by the invention of the Internet.

Thank you, Al Gore. ;)
 

hatsoff

New member
bob b said:
The quality of an anti-evolution article on the Web has little to do with whether all life on Earth evolved from slime or not.

I would never claim otherwise. The article serves as a glowing example of the twisted logic employed by anti-evolutionists and young-earthers. It does not make or break the ideas themselves. That is done elsewhere, using sound reasoning and hard evidence.

However, there is a practical lesson to be learned from the article: without secular agreement, the anti-evolutionist movement can be chalked up to religious bias. Any alleged "scientific" rejection of evolution is therefore subject to suspicion. To laypersons who don't have the time and/or inclination to survey the evidence for themselves, it is all but proof that creation science is junk science.

You might wish to stick to scientific arguments here if you wish to avoid being lumped with the very website you despise.

I enjoy the occasional editorial post. If you don't, you're welcome to ignore them.

However, it was interesting to hear that most people reject evolutionary fairy tales, probably because it is not that hard these days to spot them for what they are, thanks to the fact that the information monopoly has been broken by the invention of the Internet.

Thank you, Al Gore. ;)

I very much doubt "most" people reject evolution. That 44% figure is out-of-date and probably imprecise even when it was first reported. Moreover, even if it is to be believed, that's still not "most" people.

Their rejection of evolution has little to do with science, in my estimation. I would imagine most people know next to nothing about evolution, but base their beliefs on either what scientists tell them or what their religion tells them. Considering that one-or-the-other situation, it is understandable how creationism is such a widespread belief.
 

Evoken

New member
bob b said:
There is absolutely nothing in the article that pertains to the irreducibly complex argument unless you believe that the fact that some of the proteins used in the flagellum are also made use of in systems with far different functions is a compelling argument against Behe's thesis..

Actually the article does by showing that the individual components of the flagellum are functional and open to Natural Seleciton. That alone refutes IC.


Valz
 

Evoken

New member
bob b said:
The best that can be said about "plausible" scenarios is they might possibly be true. Until someone is able to demonstrate experimentally that each step is in fact possible, the scenario remains a conjecture, and should not be advanced to support a claim that IC has been shown to be false.

Actually it can, the issue that you seem to overlook is that IC claims that it is NOT possible for it to evolve. But the proposed pathways show that it is possible for it to evolve, ergo the claim of IC is refuted.

Evolutionists teach that God is not necessary, Mother Nature did it.

Evolution is just a biological process, it says nothing about wether or not God exists. Some people may use the theory to justify their atheism, but atheism itself is not inherent to Evolution itself.

There is a good reason that almost all leading biologists are atheists and are effectively reproducing themselves due to their stature in the field and their control of the educational apparatus. Instead of worshipping the Creator they worship the creation as the pagans do.

I have a better reason, it is arrogance born out of the fact that they "know" how nature works and can explain it, they seem to believe that this somehow removes God. "The fool says in his heart there is no God"

Theistic evolutionists have been deceived into believing the lie that all life has descended by natural means from a hypothetical primitive protocell. Tacking the lame excuse that "God guided it" onto the basic lie is no substitute for the truth.

You are merely asserting that Evolution is a lie (or some big hoax), what evidence do you have to back this claim?

As far as Theistic Evolution goes, I listen to The Church and since she has not condemned Evolution as being contrary to the faith(also contrary to what is commonly believed she has not formally accepted it either), and has given the freedom to discuss the matter and to either accept or reject Evolution on it's own merits, I have no rush to hold to a particular position. I can be a YEC and still be a Catholic in good standing, I can be a TE and still be a Catholic in good standing. I choose to be a TE becasue I find the evidence for Evolution convincing.

If The Church ever declares Evolution as being contrary to the faith, I would reject Evolution in a heart beat and hold to whatever position The Church tells me to.


Valz
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Valz said:
Actually it can, the issue that you seem to overlook is that IC claims that it is NOT possible for it to evolve. But the proposed pathways show that it is possible for it to evolve, ergo the claim of IC is refuted.
Evolution is just a biological process, it says nothing about wether or not God exists. Some people may use the theory to justify their atheism, but atheism itself is not inherent to Evolution itself.
I have a better reason, it is arrogance born out of the fact that they "know" how nature works and can explain it, they seem to believe that this somehow removes God. "The fool says in his heart there is no God"
You are merely asserting that Evolution is a lie (or some big hoax), what evidence do you have to back this claim?
As far as Theistic Evolution goes, I listen to The Church and since she has not condemned Evolution as being contrary to the faith(also contrary to what is commonly believed she has not formally accepted it either), and has given the freedom to discuss the matter and to either accept or reject Evolution on it's own merits, I have no rush to hold to a particular position. I can be a YEC and still be a Catholic in good standing, I can be a TE and still be a Catholic in good standing. I choose to be a TE becasue I find the evidence for Evolution convincing.
If The Church ever declares Evolution as being contrary to the faith, I would reject Evolution in a heart beat and hold to whatever position The Church tells me to.
Valz

I am posting the following in the interests of stimulating thought with respect to the multidimensional aspect of life as opposed to the usual one-dimensional thinking which is at the heart of the appeal of "random mutations plus natural selection.

I realize that my background and experience in Systems Engineering and Operations Research has made me particularly sensitive to the interdependance of components in an overall system, such as we see in biology, a sensitivity rarely seen among the general public. So I will be emphasizing this aspect of life in future posts to aid in people's understanding of why people like myself are so firmly convinced that NeoDarwinism, the idea that random mutations and natural selection is a valid mechanism, is a bankrupt idea in the light of modern discoveries of the intricate mechanisms within cells and creatures.

Note in particular the phrases which I highlighted.

------

A Mathematician's View of Evolution
By: Granville Sewell
The Mathematical Intelligencer 22, no. 4 (2000), pp5-7
July 7, 2006

In "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," (The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000)), mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information.

Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself."

Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.

The entire article can be read at http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Valz said:
Nature has already published a paper on The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/
Valz

It is quite a stretch to conclude that a carefully designed computer program has any relevance to biology, but considering that one of the authors of the paper, Robert Pennock of the philosophy department, is a well-known atheist who has written rabid anti-creationist books, it is no big surprise to me.

Nature, the most famous British science magazine, has in the past few years become more and more strident in its anti-creationist stance and thus is in effect collaborating with its anti-creationist clientel in permitting the words "evolution" and "evolutionary" to be applied to more and more areas outside of biology.

So we see titles like "The Evolutionary Universe" and in this case "The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features" when the paper in question here is actually about so-called "digital life", whatever that is supposed to mean. This type of "life" certainly did not arise by itself or is sustained by itself, not without the aid of an already functioning electronic computer and a program devised by an intelligent programmer.

Shame on you Nature magazine for allowing the titles and verbage in this article you published to confuse the public that this has anything whatsoever to do with biology and NeoDarwinism, the outrageous claim that "random mutations plus natural selection" has generated all life we see today starting with some undefined hypothetical primitive protocell.

This "experiment" is nothing more than an elaborate analogy, and it remains to be seen whether the simple principle advanced in the summary of "replication, mutation and competition" would, given sufficient time, generate a computer program as sophisticated as the one which implements the experiment described in the article.

Or do the authors believe in "God-guided evolution", where in this case the programmer is playing the role of God?

--------

I would also like to say a bit more about Ken Miller's article Both Behe and Dembski have replied in detail, but perhaps this short quotation from Behe will suffice to dispense your faith in Miller's argument. If not let me know and I will post the full replies as well as my own analysis.

"If nothing else, one has to admire the breathtaking audacity of verbally trying to turn another severe problem for Darwinism into an advantage. In recent years it has been shown that the bacterial flagellum is an even more sophisticated system than had been thought. Not only does it act as a rotary propulsion device, it also contains within itself an elegant mechanism to transport the proteins that make up the outer portion of the machine, from the inside of the cell to the outside. (Aizawa 1996) Without blinking, Miller asserted that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex because some proteins of the flagellum could be missing and the remainder could still transport proteins, perhaps independently. (Proteins similar -- but not identical -- to some found in the flagellum occur in the type III secretory system of some bacteria. See Hueck 1998). Again he was equivocating, switching the focus from the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine to the ability of a subset of the system to transport proteins across a membrane. However, taking away the parts of the flagellum certainly destroys the ability of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine, as I have argued. Thus, contra Miller, the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex. What's more, the function of transporting proteins has as little directly to do with the function of rotary propulsion as a toothpick has to do with a mousetrap. So discovering the supportive function of transporting proteins tells us precisely nothing about how Darwinian processes might have put together a rotary propulsion machine."

I should repeat my own prior observation that it has been known for over 20 years that proteins participate in multiple subsystems within organisms. This is not evidence that any system gave rise in an evolutionary sense to any other system, only that, like subprograms in computer programs, that reuse of basic components is a good idea.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Jukia said:
A fertilized chimp egg, and put human genes into it? Assuming you could overcome the technical difficulties do you see any ethical issues???
I don't know enough about it to comment meaningfully but intuitively I'd say yes. Humans are not simply animals and so it seems a whole pile of ethical issues would crop up, especially if it was one's intent to create a hybrid.
 

Evoken

New member
bob b said:
It is quite a stretch to conclude that a carefully designed computer program has any relevance to biology, but considering that one of the authors of the paper, Robert Pennock of the philosophy department, is a well-known atheist who has written rabid anti-creationist books, it is no big surprise to me.

Nature, the most famous British science magazine, has in the past few years become more and more strident in its anti-creationist stance and thus is in effect collaborating with its anti-creationist clientel in permitting the words "evolution" and "evolutionary" to be applied to more and more areas outside of biology.

So we see titles like "The Evolutionary Universe" and in this case "The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features" when the paper in question here is actually about so-called "digital life", whatever that is supposed to mean. This type of "life" certainly did not arise by itself or is sustained by itself, not without the aid of an already functioning electronic computer and a program devised by an intelligent programmer.

Shame on you Nature magazine for allowing the titles and verbage in this article you published to confuse the public that this has anything whatsoever to do with biology and NeoDarwinism, the outrageous claim that "random mutations plus natural selection" has generated all life we see today starting with some undefined hypothetical primitive protocell.

This "experiment" is nothing more than an elaborate analogy, and it remains to be seen whether the simple principle advanced in the summary of "replication, mutation and competition" would, given sufficient time, generate a computer program as sophisticated as the one which implements the experiment described in the article.

You did not point out to any particular details of the paper. You seem to be arguing about abiogenesis and the origin of the universe, both things are irrelevant to Evolution and to the paper I linked to. You are also claiming that there is some conspiracy or intantionally deception behind it, why?

I would also like to say a bit more about Ken Miller's article Both Behe and Dembski have replied in detail, but perhaps this short quotation from Behe will suffice to dispense your faith in Miller's argument. If not let me know and I will post the full replies as well as my own analysis.

Behe's reply amounts to nothing more than goal shifting. When he is shown that the flagellum is not IC and that it could have evolved he turns around to some other detail, when that is explained too, he moves to something else. He now demands a step by step testable account of an atom by atom evolution of the flagellum. Just like Dembski he demands and insane level of detail that is simply irrelevant to the fact that Evolution can bring about IC structures.

Someone on another forum gave me an analogy to illustrate what Behe and Dembski are doing: "We understand Newtonian mechanics very very well. We know that every hit Derek Jeter gets is completely describable by Newtonian mechanics. Yet suppose someone said "OK, in the 3rd inning last night Jeter hit a single to left field. Unless you can fully account for exactly where that ball landed in the outfield, describing every force that acted on it at each moment from the time the ball left the pitcher's hand until it hit the ground, you have no reason to believe Newtonian mechanics is capable of accounting for the ball's flight." How idiotic is that? Yet that's what the IDiots want. In the immortal word of G. Ludwig Meyer, "Scroom!"


Valz
 

Jukia

New member
Valz said:
You seem to be arguing about abiogenesis and the origin of the universe, both things are irrelevant to Evolution and to the paper I linked to.

Standard bob b argument. Lets get things back to abiogenesis cause science does not have specific answers therefore everything from that point forward regarding evolution is wrong.
 
Top