Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The evolution game is up!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post

    Hold on a second, aren't you all complaining how IC cannot be tested yet there is an article that attempts to explain it? Also may I note here that William Dembski has redefined IC to account for those so-called alternative functions. Here are some refutations:

    1. Very thorough investigation of Matzke's claims. (Note that there are 7 parts! refuting the alternative function hypothesis)

    2. A reply from William Dembski

    3. Sequence similarities in the bacterial flagellum: what do they mean?

    4. On the prospect of understanding major evolutionary transformations

    5. We must "understand that there is no serious scientific challenge to evolution"

    6. DARWINISM GONE WILD

    7. The Evolution of the Flagellum
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Evoken View Post
      Argument from incredulity (a.k.a. you don't have enough FAITH that it evolved).
      Sometimes it's good actually... I don't need faith, but the evidence suggests that it CANNOT evolve.

      Opponents of Neo-Darwinian evolution have argued that it is impossible, because many biological systems require an irreducible number of parts for the system to have any useful function. The concept of irreducibility requires a set of characteristics that must exist simultaneously. Such characteristics are termed critical characteristics. The advantage of identifying critical characteristics is that they give an indication of the minimum quantity of design information that must exist simultaneously in the genetic code for a mechanism to have any useful function. The irreducible mechanism of the knee joint is shown to contain at least 16 critical characteristics, each requiring thousands of precise units of information to exist simultaneously in the genetic code. This demonstrates that the knee could not have evolved but must have been created as a fully functioning limb joint from the beginning of its existence.

      Even if some say it could evolve, I would say it is merely story-telling from science.
      The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by macguy View Post
        Hold on a second, aren't you all complaining how IC cannot be tested yet there is an article that attempts to explain it? Also may I note here that William Dembski has redefined IC to account for those so-called alternative functions. Here are some refutations:

        1. Very thorough investigation of Matzke's claims. (Note that there are 7 parts! refuting the alternative function hypothesis)

        2. A reply from William Dembski

        3. Sequence similarities in the bacterial flagellum: what do they mean?

        4. On the prospect of understanding major evolutionary transformations

        5. We must "understand that there is no serious scientific challenge to evolution"

        6. DARWINISM GONE WILD

        7. The Evolution of the Flagellum
        IC can't be tested because it doesn't make predictions. Behe has claimed that several structures and processes are too complex to have evolved naturally. This shows that this is not the case.
        "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

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
          IC can't be tested because it doesn't make predictions. Behe has claimed that several structures and processes are too complex to have evolved naturally. This shows that this is not the case.
          Irreducibly complex systems such as mousetraps and flagella serve both as negative arguments against gradualistic explanations like Darwin’s and as positive arguments for design. The negative argument is that such interactive systems resist explanation by the tiny steps that a Darwinian path would be expected to take. The positive argument is that their parts appear arranged to serve a purpose, which is exactly how we detect design.
          Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, Afterward, pgs. 263-264


          Perhaps IC may not prove a designer, so all this would mean is that ID was misdirected. For some reason, I am getting the impression from you guys think that science is never wrong or it can't be wrong. I don't see why ID can't be wrong in some areas and improve later on. In fact, this is how science works!

          Science is a process of search for the truth, and few things are more certain than the fact that as the process continues, current theories will be revised and eventually abandoned in favor of new theories. The Limitations of Scientific Truth, Preface.

          It is not a matter of complexity per se, but rather how this complexity cannot be reduced in order for it's job to be completed. The links I showed presents that it is the case.
          The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by macguy View Post
            Irreducibly complex systems such as mousetraps and flagella serve both as negative arguments against gradualistic explanations like Darwin’s and as positive arguments for design. The negative argument is that such interactive systems resist explanation by the tiny steps that a Darwinian path would be expected to take. The positive argument is that their parts appear arranged to serve a purpose, which is exactly how we detect design.
            Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, Afterward, pgs. 263-264


            Perhaps IC may not prove a designer, so all this would mean is that ID was misdirected. For some reason, I am getting the impression from you guys think that science is never wrong or it can't be wrong. I don't see why ID can't be wrong in some areas and improve later on. In fact, this is how science works!

            Science is a process of search for the truth, and few things are more certain than the fact that as the process continues, current theories will be revised and eventually abandoned in favor of new theories. The Limitations of Scientific Truth, Preface.

            It is not a matter of complexity per se, but rather how this complexity cannot be reduced in order for it's job to be completed. The links I showed presents that it is the case.
            Except that time again this complexity has been shown to be reduceable.
            "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

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
              Except that time again this complexity has been shown to be reduceable.
              Indeed, but time doesn't say anything about whether all irreducibly complex systems are reducible. Considering that we are finite beings with finite observations, we cannot help but argue from ignorance (which is not always fallacious, it all depends on the from of argumentation). If we knew everything, then we could make definite arguments but nothing in science is definite. Science is merely the process for truth, and if it is shown that IC is false then this would have been known as false science. This is not to say that IC isn't science, because they did use observations to say that it is irreducibly complex but then there could've just been a few more factors that no one knew about at the time. At least they researched and that's the most important.
              The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by macguy View Post
                Indeed, but time doesn't say anything about whether all irreducibly complex systems are reducible. Considering that we are finite beings with finite observations, we cannot help but argue from ignorance (which is not always fallacious, it all depends on the from of argumentation). If we knew everything, then we could make definite arguments but nothing in science is definite. Science is merely the process for truth, and if it is shown that IC is false then this would have been known as false science. This is not to say that IC isn't science, because they did use observations to say that it is irreducibly complex but then there could've just been a few more factors that no one knew about at the time. At least they researched and that's the most important.
                How many times must the claims of ID be shown to be lacking in substance before rationality dictates that it simply doesn't measure up and should be discarded? ID's track record is not good, and I suspect it is being held onto for reasons other than an unbiased love of scientific truth. Any other "theory" with its at-bat average would have been traded in long ago.
                "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

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                  Except that time again this complexity has been shown to be reduceable.
                  Just saying it, doesn't make it so.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                    How many times must the claims of ID be shown to be lacking in substance before rationality dictates that it simply doesn't measure up and should be discarded?

                    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's track record is not good, and I suspect it is being held onto for reasons other than an unbiased love of scientific truth. Any other "theory" with its at-bat average would have been traded in long ago.
                    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.
                    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by macguy View Post
                      I have a hard time believing that knee joints can evolve.
                      ...and I have a hard time believing that the Earth is round.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by bob b
                        I might wonder whether anyone has ever claimed that these are cases of irreducibly complex systems?
                        Behe's book clearly defines an IC system. Does it not?
                        “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                          ...and I have a hard time believing that the Earth is round.
                          Except you have no evidence on your side where as I have evidence against a naturalistic explanation. It seems that you are willing to say in time evolution will be able to do anything, so what necessarily will falsify it anyways? You have a hard time believing creationism would be more like it. Both theories are historical science and has nothing to do with present observations. In fact, many back in those days knew that the earth was round long before Galileo. There were only a few heresies who believed in such things and the catholic church was involved since these people had a lot of power.
                          The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by macguy View Post
                            You have a hard time believing creationism would be more like it.
                            A hard time believing in Young Earth creationism, to be specific. YEC is a deluded fantasy with absolutely no evidence.

                            Both theories are historical science and has nothing to do with present observations.
                            You've got to be kidding.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by death2impiety View Post
                              Just saying it, doesn't make it so.
                              Nope- but the facts speak for themselves. You can choose to ignore them, but that certainly doesn't make them any less true. Google is what, a seconds long journey- try doing a search and reading what comes up.
                              "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

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                                Nope- but the facts speak for themselves. You can choose to ignore them, but that certainly doesn't make them any less true. Google is what, a seconds long journey- try doing a search and reading what comes up.
                                “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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X