The evolution game is up!!!
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
macguy
New member
Again, why do you repeatedly insist on asserting things rather than PROVING it? You haven't demonstrated anything but mock IC as to how wrong it is but never a demonstration of a working and observable model of the flagellum evolving. I presented articles that refuted that article very thoroughly enough to make it nothing more but good science story-telling.
Design would be organized complexity with the job of working for a purpose. Easy...If i were to find an arrowhead, I would conclude and any sane person would say that it is designed. IC is one way of detecting a design structure...You act as if you refuted the concept.
mighty_duck
New member
Wikipedia is at least as acurate as Britanica, and has well referenced sources. It is ove 99% acccurate, and therefore is a god default position to start with.
I said special presuppositions. Of course they presuppose that reality exists and other basic things.
What are long odds for an intelligent designer? Assuming extreme intelligence, this designer could have used evolution for his purposes. Therefore ID is compatible with evolution.
Scapegoats?
I admited we don't know. That doesn't mean that godidit is a better answer. There will always be questions left unanswered, but so what?
Incidentally, how did God create things?
To answer your question, chances are it was a single cell organism.
PlastikBuddha
New member
Heres several models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
I have more than just mocked IC. I have shown that it has struck out.
Malarkey. Do you have any idea how often naturally chipped stones are mistaken for intenionally-created tools? How do you clearly diferentiate between design and evolution? Saying its obvious isn't good enough if you're basing pretty much the entire ID movement on it.
macguy
New member
Episode 1: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
Darwin's Dangerous Idea (Discovery Insitute)
Refutation here.
Our eye movements and their control: part 1
Our eye movements and their control: part 2
Also consider the fact that a lot of junk DNA is now finding out that it has a function. So I guess junk DNA isn't science eh? Since of course, IC can't be science either!
macguy
New member
My first link refuted just that!!! You have shown nothing...
Yes, something such as the pebble has sometimes been mistakenly considered to be designed by those who don't investigate things carefully. Not only must it exhibit design, but it must be organized and have a purpose. Evolution on the other hand argues that everything is the result of random processes. IC is good for differentiating between design and evolution...Also, I would argue that the origin of life has so much evidence against it, that it argues for a designer. There are only two explanations, either it was done by design or by naturalistic processes.
Here are some more details. In this link, you'll see William Dembski's specified complexity argument. More specifically is this blog.
PlastikBuddha
New member
I'm not sure what you're even trying to point out with these links.
I skimmed those- seems like all they are is appeals to incredulity and moving the bar back. Oh- you can show how the IC eye is actually reducible to an eyespot? OK- well then now the eyespot itself is IC. The other two are just attempts to gee-whiz the skepticism right out of you.
What's your point? I already said I don't consider junk DNA to be a good anti-ID argument.
PlastikBuddha
New member
Your link argued against one model. This article describes several.
It must have a purpose? Sounds a bit platonic to me, but whatever. How do you determine somethings purpose? Evolution shows that things can have more than one use, but purpose presupposes design- something no biologic process or specimen has demonstrated.
mighty_duck
New member
Who ever said evolution isn't complex, highly ordered or sophisticad? of course it is!
The fact that it has random components doesn't change any of that.
A genetic algorithm actually takes other algorithms, combines them in different ways,and/or makes mutations to them to get new algorithms, and then checks the fitness of the "offspring" algorithms. Remind you of anything?
While the process is sophisticated, the resultant algorithm is not designed in the same way a mechanical engineer might design an engine. No one came in and designed the differnt parts to work efficiently together - a process did that.
You may claim that the process is intelligent, but that is not the point. The point is that a process can make an algorithm that appears like it was put together by a human.
macguy
New member
To refute your links...
Incredulity is not a fallacious argument for crying out loud!!! It all depends on the form of argument...and it's arguing from what we know. This seems to be the frequent objection or should I say, escape route for the evolutionist.
Whether it's good is not the point...It doesn't matter whether it is a good argument or not but that it asserts that there is no function because they don't know of any. To me, that would be fine since if it does have function, science would one day figure it out. You brought it up in the first place and many think it is science. My point is that if this, what you would call "argument from incredulity" can be science, why can't IC be science?
macguy
New member
My link had 7 parts which was devoted to the models mentioned in wikipedia with Matzke's being the most recent.
That is, the arrowhead was made for purpose where as the pebble may look designed, but it has no purpose and is therefore more likely to have been done by chance. Specified complexity my friend and irreducible complexity go hand in hand. I heard IDers say that even though IC is used so much, they got a lot more comprehensive arguments than that. I just have no idea what they're even referring to though... :shrug: Just sharing my experience.
Evolution just says it could have more than one use not that it proves that it can have another purpose. Story-telling as I said in science.
PlastikBuddha
New member
Yeah- I gathered that. My link was done specifically for the eye bits.
It is not acceptable in science.
Incredulity is not science. Saying "I can't think of any other possibility" is not good enough.
macguy
New member
It is, since Junk DNA is used as having no function and especially vestigial organs! At least some evolutionists have stated that they can't see how vestigial organs can have functions. Science uses philosophy by the way. Such a fact is inescapable and you're begging the question since you're using philosophy! It's as if one was saying that Logic can be used but not in science. I wasn't necessarily saying that the argument from ignorance can always be used, but that in certain cases it can unlike what most people say. Most philosophy textbooks don't really get into the details of what makes the argument from ignorance a fallacy.
Neither are IDers saying that they don't think there can be any other possibility. They have encouraged evolutionists to research it...If they are arguing from incredulity, then evolutionists are arguing from imaginations. There could be possibilities but so far you haven't demonstrated any example of IC being refuted.
Evoken
New member
Indeed, it is a way of telling you that you don't have enough faith that naturedidit. It is a cop out.
Evo
Husband&Father
New member
Hey,
If I fill up my bath tub and let the water sit, how long do I have to wait for nature to evolve me a pet gold fish?
If I fill up my bath tub and let the water sit, how long do I have to wait for nature to evolve me a pet gold fish?
mighty_duck
New member
A possibility IS irreducible complexity being refuted.
What is IC? IC is the claim that there is no possibility that a certain feature could have come about by succesive, gradual changes. One possibliy renders that claim null and void.
macguy
New member
I said that there COULD but so far, there is no explanation for the flagellum. Talk about taking my words out of context. Again, there is always the possibility that IC could be refuted which is perfectly fine but it seems rather unlikely at the moment. The reason why I said possibility is that I am not that type of guy who likes taking absolutes since I'm open to alternative theories. It's just at the moment, naturalism is very improbable therefore I take theism. I could be a theistic evolutionists, but there's no reason for me to be one due to the evidence against it that I've been reading up on lately.
mighty_duck
New member
???
What is so wrong with not knowing how something happened?
If you disagree with the reasonableness of naturedidit, fine. But to jump from "we don't know how it happened" to "it is impossible/improbable that naturedidit" and therefore some form of "godidit" - is completely unwarranted. Why not just say you don't know? You are left with the same number of unknowns as godidit, yet with one fewer entity to not know anything about...
PlastikBuddha
New member
If there's a thread on evolution how long do I have to wait for someone to post something incredibly stupid and meaningless? I don't think anyone ever claimed that fish evolved from bath water.
PlastikBuddha
New member
Science is based on deduction and observation. Ignorance and incredulity run completely counter to the entire process. You can't trot out some theory and support it by saying "Well, for all we know it COULD be true" or "You know, I just can't think of anything else, so this must be it".
I'm honestly not at all sure how you can say that. All that is needed is to show a possible way in which these systems could have occurred naturally- it doesn't even have to be the "right" way. IC claims that there can be no such thing and it is shown to be flawed. You want more examples? Here's two.
http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html
http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec99.html