Author
|
Topic: Cool Comic Booklets. (Read 118432 times)
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Posts: 491
|
I notice how you fail to include anyone who thought outside the box and was terribly wrong. People trying to turn urine into gold and whatnot were certainly trying to think outside the box. However, they turned out to be wrong. Keep that in mind. It might apply to anyone currently atttempting the same. Er, thinking outside the box that is. Not producing gold.
There are many darwinian scientists that are wrong. In the 70's there was an origin theory that the first protiens self assembled without help from RNA or DNA (somthing predestination). This was embraced throughout the scientific community and thus it was thought life was inevitible in the right conditions. That is in the trash bin now. The evolutionary theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is almost unanimously rejected now.
There are scientists studying cold fusion which may ultimately be a complete waste of time. The whole point I was trying to make is that it's OK to try and fail even if somthing is deemed ridiculous by the majority.
You miss my point fairly completely. I was not saying that something is a fact unless the majority agrees with it. I was saying that you cannot present something as a fact if it is not already accepted, and assume that everyone will agree. Nanuk may consider it rock solid fact that Argarak punishes the unrepentant. He may even be right. But in a civil court, this will not hold up well because the rest of the world doesn't believe in Argarak. Similarily, if you made the case for a "gonne" being used in Nanuks home city, the'd laugh at you. You'd be right, but you'd be unable to prove it.
Meep said I was using the argument that since we only see Black crows, I am assuming all crows are black. But at what point do we draw the line? Isn't it fair to say that since in the 2000 years of human history there has never been anything but black crows, we know from breeding expiriments that crows are always born black. So I'm basing my argument on what we know rather than a hopeful new scientific discovery.
Back to your detective story. I say the wound was caused by a bullet, you say it was caused by a knife. Ok who is right? Well based on what we DO know about bullet wounds and what we DO know about knife wounds, we can make some predictions. Is there an exit wound? Is it consistant with bullet wound trauma? Knife wounds leave tell tale slice marks etc.All I'm saying here is that there is criteria we can apply to biological systems to see if it's more consistant with design or random natural forces.
The seti program is based solely on this principle. If Seti does recieve a possible alien signal from outerspace they have a battery of scientific tests to determine if the signal is indeed from an artifical or natural source. This is based on what we DO know about natural and artificial signals. Likewise the same principle can be applied to biologicals.
For example, your fact of "irreducible complexity" has been countered numerous times, with numerous theories. They might be just as right as you are, but in the absence of any actual evidence that both parties can agree upon, neither of you will change your minds.
Biochemist Michale Behe coined the phrase "irreducible complexity" and it has never been successfully countered . His book "Darwin's Black Box" has caused quite a stir in the scientific community. Darwin himself said that if it could be shown that any biological structure couldn't be produced by small evolutionary steps, his theory would absolutely break down. Well it has been shown.
Evolutiuonary scientiists have countered with "co-option". The general synopsis is that biological systems borrow parts of other existing useful biological systems and construct somthing novel or unique. Like I said before, this is fundamentally flawed because even though a rock, stick and leather string may be useful tools to a caveman, only intelligence is going to tie the rock to the stick with the string and make a hammer or axe. This is based on what we know about designed machines, and thus far, natural unguided processes cannot produce this unlikely combination.
Is it possible that we will find a naturalistic cause in the furture? Is it possible breeding crows will produce a blue crow? It is possible, just as it's possible that monkeys may fly out of my ass somday too..
Co-Option represents a "just-so" story made to fit the evolutionary religion that is so dogmaticly and jealously guarded.
Funny, I'd think the "Theory" part in "Theory of Evolution" here would point ot that. And I don't know what school you went to, but we were taught that "this is the way it is believed to have happened", not "this is how it happened". That was saved for Religion class.
Ever hear of Caral Sagen? Ever watch PBS and Discovery channel specials which proclaim the "fact" of evolution.. Evolution is presented as fact everywhere you look..In school it was presented as fact as well.
Indeed. And others feel the same way about your theory of Intelligent Design. Yet you are obviously right and they are wrong? For that to be true, you need more evidence than they have.
I'm not saying I'm absolutely right. Design is falsifiable. And I do feel I have more evidence than they have. Cladistics is based on bone similarities between fossils and is extremely flimsy. I could use the same logic and conclude a platypus and duck or great dane and poodle are evolutionary linked.
Micro evolution and Macro evolution are seperated by vast chasams of reality. I'm not saying Darwin got it all wrong, he made some important scientific observations such as natural selection and variety via. breeding. Then extrapolating that into huge evolutionary changes such as a cow into a whale or gazelle into a giraffe, although it is a powerful idea, it's not substantiated by the fossil record and genetics. This is where the scientific data abandons Darwin.
The difference is that evolution may one day be provable. And evolution as a theory can change depending on new discoveries. ID however, cannot. It cannot be proven, and it cannot be changed. It is a static belief, rather than an adaptable theory. Which makes them different.
Evolution is no more proveable than design and evolution has had a 200+ year head start. If you are waiting on a hopeful discovery to substantiate evolution I could use the same argument that scientists could discover ways in which cells design and make decisions.
This is what Halleck was pointing out earlier. I fail to see how: "For a hypothesis to be considered theory in the scientific community it must be "consistent, parsimonious, useful, empirically testable and falsifiable, based upon multiple observations, correctable and dynamic, progressive, and provisional"
The problem is the evolutionary theory doesn't meet that criteria!!! It is NOT empirically testible and falsifiable. Naturalistic causes for life and life's systems has become a religion in it's own right. Dawkins in the selfish gene said somthing to the effect ; If aliens landed on earth the first thing they'd ask is "when did we discover evolution". And he's said that evolution allows atheists to be intellectually fullfilled. Evolution has done nothing for us and is based solely on a single idea, that single celled life evolved to complex life such as humans.. Furthermore, the scientific facts don't jive with evolution. What we see in the field doesn't fit with the predictions of evolutionary theory.
If everything came from single celled life then the fossil record should be FILLED with millions of transitional fossils, not just a couple of questionable similar boned animals. The fossil record echos what we see today. There are maybe 1000 different spiecies of frog, 1000 different species of spider etc.
If every animal is connected via. evolution why isn't there one living example that scientists can point to and conclusively identify as a common ancestor? Not ONE.. We also don't find common ancestry in the fossil record. Instead we see an animal living for say 6 million years, goes extinct ,then another different animal arises and lives for millions of years, then goes extinct etc. etc.. Trilobytes for example are among the oldest fossils and are found on every contintent world wide. There are many different species. They all have slight differences such as eye placement, number of segments of their exoskeleton etc. These are fully formed animals, just as complex as any animal living today, and absolutely no evolutionary transisitional fossils before or after. Just like the 1000+ spicies of frogs...There is evidence of micro evolution in abundance that can simply be explained as breeding but nothing when it comes to macro evolution.
is calling ID a bunch of crap. He follows up with showing that these paramters do not hold true in ID, defining it as a nonscientific theory. Instead of simplifying his words and attacking the simplification, perhaps you should answer the question his essay raises?
Design is scientificly detectable. That is where our opinions differ. Evolution doesn't stand up to his criteria. I've already covered this
Besides, you could argue the Earth was designed the same way. Biggest moon in the solar system that stabilises our orbit, just the right orbit from the sun, just the right type of sun, a molten core that creates a magnetic field that protects us from radiation and gives us tectonics. And so on and so forth. Remove any one parameter, and life probably isn't possible. That's irreducibly complex, and thus it must be designed?
There are scientists that say life as we know does have to have all these things to be possible. Thus in one way it may be an irreducibly complex system in the context that it is needed for somthing else, complex life. The problem is that the planets and stars are governed by well known, simple, cause and effect, naturalistic forces that CAN be tested in the lab. Planets, and moons thus are not an irreducibly complex system by themselves and can only be deemed as such in a certain context. Life on the otherhand doesn't seem to be governed my simple naturalistic forces and doesnt behave in a simple, predictable repeating pattern.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Novus
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
There are many darwinian scientists that are wrong. In the 70's there was an origin theory that the first protiens self assembled without help from RNA or DNA (somthing predestination). This was embraced throughout the scientific community and thus it was thought life was inevitible in the right conditions. That is in the trash bin now. The evolutionary theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is almost unanimously rejected now.
You're exaggerating the problems with these theories. For example, punctuated equilibrium was never entirely rejected; it's now seen as complementary to gradualism (see e.g. Wikipedia article for sources).
There are scientists studying cold fusion which may ultimately be a complete waste of time. The whole point I was trying to make is that it's OK to try and fail even if somthing is deemed ridiculous by the majority.
Cold fusion, if it works, has the potential to be very useful. That goes a long way toward justifying work on somewhat shaky ground.
Biochemist Michale Behe coined the phrase "irreducible complexity" and it has never been successfully countered . His book "Darwin's Black Box" has caused quite a stir in the scientific community. Darwin himself said that if it could be shown that any biological structure couldn't be produced by small evolutionary steps, his theory would absolutely break down. Well it has been shown.
"has never been successfully countered"? Unlike Dembski's pseudo-mathematical definition (which is hogwash as I've outlined previously), Behe uses a definition based on whether a part can be removed from a system without preventing it from functiong. Basically, if you can't remove anything from a system without breaking it, it's irreducably complex (IC). The problems with Behe's argumentation are, in brief:
- Behe assumes without evidence (or with broken evidence) that IC lifeforms exist.
- Behe assumes without supporting argumentation that indirect evolution resulting in IC lifeforms is improbable (evidence suggests otherwise).
In other words, Behe's reasoning is both irrelevant and wrong.
For more in-depth critiques, see e.g. the Talk.Origins archive of Behe criticism.
Like I said before, this is fundamentally flawed because even though a rock, stick and leather string may be useful tools to a caveman, only intelligence is going to tie the rock to the stick with the string and make a hammer or axe.
Again, your whole generalisation is based on the implicit assumption that evolution is false, which is what you're trying to prove.
Is it possible breeding crows will produce a blue crow? It is possible, just as it's possible that monkeys may fly out of my ass somday too..
The former sounds plausible, given a large enough amount of crows and a few centuries. The latter could probably be arranged much more quickly, although PETA approval would probably be impossible to get and the whole experiment would probably be somewhat uncomfortable for you.
Co-Option represents a "just-so" story made to fit the evolutionary religion that is so dogmaticly and jealously guarded.
Again, you're rather conveniently ignoring experimental data. See e.g. True, Carroll: Gene co-option in physiological and morphological evolution.
Ever hear of Caral Sagen? Ever watch PBS and Discovery channel specials which proclaim the "fact" of evolution.. Evolution is presented as fact everywhere you look..In school it was presented as fact as well.
It is unfortunate that science teaching has a tendency toward dogma, as this is essentially opposite to the whole idea of science. However, evolution is still the current best guess by far, no matter how fervently you choose to believe otherwise.
I could use the same logic and conclude a platypus and duck or great dane and poodle are evolutionary linked.
... Which they probably are, through (somewhat distant) common ancestors.
Micro evolution and Macro evolution are seperated by vast chasams of reality. I'm not saying Darwin got it all wrong, he made some important scientific observations such as natural selection and variety via. breeding. Then extrapolating that into huge evolutionary changes such as a cow into a whale or gazelle into a giraffe, although it is a powerful idea, it's not substantiated by the fossil record and genetics. This is where the scientific data abandons Darwin.
As far as I can tell, tons of evidence countering this claim has already been presented in this thread.
Evolution is no more proveable than design and evolution has had a 200+ year head start. If you are waiting on a hopeful discovery to substantiate evolution I could use the same argument that scientists could discover ways in which cells design and make decisions.
Considering that ID is essentially creationism using pseudo-scientific parlance to dazzle the public, I'd say ID is the one with the head start; only large numbers of people rejecting creationism led to a serious reaction.
The problem is the evolutionary theory doesn't meet that criteria!!! It is NOT empirically testible and falsifiable.
How so not? It makes predictions that can be compared to observations. It describes mechanisms for change that can be studied and compared to theory. Please try to find supporting arguments for this sort of assertion before posting and save yourself the embarassment. This, of course, makes the rest of your rant all the more ridiculous.
Evolution has done nothing for us and is based solely on a single idea, that single celled life evolved to complex life such as humans.. Furthermore, the scientific facts don't jive with evolution. What we see in the field doesn't fit with the predictions of evolutionary theory.
If everything came from single celled life then the fossil record should be FILLED with millions of transitional fossils, not just a couple of questionable similar boned animals. The fossil record echos what we see today. There are maybe 1000 different spiecies of frog, 1000 different species of spider etc.
Please explain why you feel every single organism that every existed should be preserved as a fossil, given the rather limited set of conditions in which fossils are created in such a way that they can endure to the present day and the rather small amount of excavation done to unearth them.
If every animal is connected via. evolution why isn't there one living example that scientists can point to and conclusively identify as a common ancestor? Not ONE..
Because the fossil record isn't a complete set of everything that ever lived?
There is evidence of micro evolution in abundance that can simply be explained as breeding but nothing when it comes to macro evolution.
You ignored the observations I linked to a few posts back, didn't you?
Design is scientificly detectable. That is where our opinions differ. Evolution doesn't stand up to his criteria. I've already covered this
You just muddled back and forth and got yourself confused but are too stubborn to admit it. It's not a matter of opinion; the ID theories you've presented are vague enough to fit any observed data (basically, any theory that allows an omnipotent designer obviously does this) and provide precious little data on probabilities.
There are scientists that say life as we know does have to have all these things to be possible. Thus in one way it may be an irreducibly complex system in the context that it is needed for somthing else, complex life. The problem is that the planets and stars are governed by well known, simple, cause and effect, naturalistic forces that CAN be tested in the lab. Planets, and moons thus are not an irreducibly complex system by themselves and can only be deemed as such in a certain context. Life on the otherhand doesn't seem to be governed my simple naturalistic forces and doesnt behave in a simple, predictable repeating pattern.
Which definition of irreducable complexity are you using, and how does it justify this deduction?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
"has never been successfully countered"? Unlike Dembski's pseudo-mathematical definition (which is hogwash as I've outlined previously), Behe uses a definition based on whether a part can be removed from a system without preventing it from functiong. Basically, if you can't remove anything from a system without breaking it, it's irreducably complex (IC). The problems with Behe's argumentation are, in brief: - Behe assumes without evidence (or with broken evidence) that IC lifeforms exist.
- Behe assumes without supporting argumentation that indirect evolution resulting in IC lifeforms is improbable (evidence suggests otherwise).
In other words, Behe's reasoning is both irrelevant and wrong. For more in-depth critiques, see e.g. the Talk.Origins archive of Behe criticism.
LoL.. "in-depth critiques". About as "deep" as a mud puddle. Do you even read the sites you are linking? Show me one example from that link that sites tangible evidence countering Behe. It's all just-so stories formed within the darwinian theology.
Furthermore, scientists have demonstrated irreducible complexity by removing parts of irreducibly complex biological systems. Two examples are the bacterial flagellum and the blod clotting cascade. Remove one part and they don't work, not even a little bit. I'll see if I can find a link on this..
Again, your whole generalisation is based on the implicit assumption that evolution is false, which is what you're trying to prove.
I'm not trying to prove anything. And of course my assumption is that evolution is false becuse there is virtually no real world, tangible evidence to support it. Evolution is all based on an idea. Once again my only real objection to evolution is the lack of real world evidence and the random mutation/natural selection mechanisim assumed by darwinian scientists. Assumptions amount to nothing without real scientific evidence.
Here's a telling passage from that "expirimental" data:
A major role for gene co-option in the evolution of development has long been assumed, and many recent comparative developmental and genomic studies have lent support to this idea. Although there is relatively less known about the molecular basis of co-option events involving developmental pathways, much can be drawn from well-studied examples of the co-option of structural proteins.
Once again, absolutely nothing concrete. It's all based on assumption. just-so guesswork just doesn't cut it...
evolution is still the current best guess by far
That's a matter of opinion. Guesswork is NOT good science!
... Which they probably are, through (somewhat distant) common ancestors.
Sigh... "probably"...Does that seem like good science to you?
As far as I can tell, tons of evidence countering this claim has already been presented in this thread.
I can't... If the "Tons" of evidence refer to your Wikipedia link to transitional fossils, you must have a different measuring system in your country than I have in mine.
Considering that ID is essentially creationism using pseudo-scientific parlance to dazzle the public, I'd say ID is the one with the head start; only large numbers of people rejecting creationism led to a serious reaction.
Laugh, if you want to stereotype ID that's your perogative. I'm interested in real world, tangible, scientific evidence. I have no agenda or predefined model I try and stuff or fit the evidence into. I'm open to it. If the evidence tends to swing into the direction of creationists, so be it. If it swings in other directions, that's ok too.
How so not? It makes predictions that can be compared to observations. It describes mechanisms for change that can be studied and compared to theory. Please try to find supporting arguments for this sort of assertion before posting and save yourself the embarassment. This, of course, makes the rest of your rant all the more ridiculous.
You can compare nearly anything to observations, so what? Furthermore, the predicitons made by evolution are not proving to jive with what we see in the real world. At what point do you say hey guys, this isn't working and there might be somthing awry? What testable, repeatable scientific expiriment has been set up to demonstrate the formation of new, useful, novel information in a genome through random mutation? None? If you can't do that then how is it science and how is it any different than theology? It isn't any different than a belief.
Please explain why you feel every single organism that every existed should be preserved as a fossil, given the rather limited set of conditions in which fossils are created in such a way that they can endure to the present day and the rather small amount of excavation done to unearth them.
I don't feel that they should. I'm just pointing out that there should be many transitional animals if evolution occured through slight evolutionary changes as Darwin predicted. Why do we have hundreds of fossils from any given species that existed for several million years with no evolutionary change, yet the vast majority of animals do not have a clear evolutionary ancestor?
If evolution really did happen according to darwin, there should be no question whatsoever from the fossil record and from LIVING examples. Am I to believe that natural selection selected out the transitional species for every single animal on the planet and not one survives to this day? Does this really make sense to you?
If every animal is connected via. evolution why isn't there one living example that scientists can point to and conclusively identify as a common ancestor? Not ONE..
Because the fossil record isn't a complete set of everything that ever lived?
LIVING example.. not just the fossil record. And why are they so rare in the fossil record anyway? One would think we should find many, many more than a couple of questional examples.
You ignored the observations I linked to a few posts back, didn't you?
Nope.
You just muddled back and forth and got yourself confused but are too stubborn to admit it. It's not a matter of opinion; the ID theories you've presented are vague enough to fit any observed data (basically, any theory that allows an omnipotent designer obviously does this) and provide precious little data on probabilities.
Not sure what you mean without clarification on what I "muddled" but I'll admit it if I have done so... Also, who said anything about an omnipotent designer? I'm not a creationist. I'm more concerened with the "is" it design and leave the "who" and "why " to philosophers.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 09, 2006, 06:23:11 am by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Novus
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
LoL.. "in-depth critiques". About as "deep" as a mud puddle.
As opposed to your technique of conveniently ignoring observational data that runs against your pet "theory", which is entirely based on flawed logic and selective observation, as noted several times here?
Do you even read the sites you are linking?
Yes. Do you?
Show me one example from that link that sites tangible evidence countering Behe. It's all just-so stories formed within the darwinian theology.
Let's take the first article from the list, just for starters. Behe is blatantly ignoring freshman-level genetics when discussing pseudogenes; both tandem duplication and reverse transcription are well-known and extensively studied mechanisms to do what Behe says doesn't happen.
Similarly, much of the November 1996 issue of Scientific American is a list of observations contradicting Behe's statements on antibodies.
Furthermore, scientists have demonstrated irreducible complexity by removing parts of irreducibly complex biological systems. Two examples are the bacterial flagellum and the blod clotting cascade. Remove one part and they don't work, not even a little bit. I'll see if I can find a link on this..
In fact, the opposite has been demonstrated; see, for example, Semba et al.: Whale Hageman factor (factor XII): prevented production due to pseudogene conversion. (shows that factor XII is not needed for coagulation) and simpler versions of flagella serve a useful purpose (see e.g. Miller: The Flagellum Unspun).
There's an extensive list of articles on the Talk.Origins site that address different issues of this type.
I'm not trying to prove anything.
You're surprisingly argumentative for someone who isn't.
And of course my assumption is that evolution is false becuse there is virtually no real world, tangible evidence to support it.
What's wrong with all the evidence?
Evolution is all based on an idea.
And ID isn't?
Once again my only real objection to evolution is the lack of real world evidence and the random mutation/natural selection mechanisim assumed by darwinian scientists. Assumptions amount to nothing without real scientific evidence.
More repetition of the same ideas.
Here's a telling passage from that "expirimental" data:
A major role for gene co-option in the evolution of development has long been assumed, and many recent comparative developmental and genomic studies have lent support to this idea. Although there is relatively less known about the molecular basis of co-option events involving developmental pathways, much can be drawn from well-studied examples of the co-option of structural proteins.
Once again, absolutely nothing concrete. It's all based on assumption. just-so guesswork just doesn't cut it...
You fail reading comprehension; the rest of the sentence explains that these assumptions have supporting evidence.
evolution is still the current best guess by far That's a matter of opinion. Guesswork is NOT good science!
... Which they probably are, through (somewhat distant) common ancestors.
Sigh... "probably"...Does that seem like good science to you?
As far as I can tell, tons of evidence countering this claim has already been presented in this thread.
I can't... If the "Tons" of evidence refer to your Wikipedia link to transitional fossils, you must have a different measuring system in your country than I have in mine.
Laugh, if you want to stereotype ID that's your perogative. I'm interested in real world, tangible, scientific evidence. I have no agenda or predefined model I try and stuff or fit the evidence into. I'm open to it. If the evidence tends to swing into the direction of creationists, so be it. If it swings in other directions, that's ok too.
Then why do you insist on accepting ID without evidence, despite evidence to the contrary and despite glaring flaws in the reasoning? Where's the evidence for ID?
You can compare nearly anything to observations, so what? Furthermore, the predicitons made by evolution are not proving to jive with what we see in the real world.
Could you cite a specific case for this that hasn't been resolved by minor modifications to the theory?
At what point do you say hey guys, this isn't working and there might be somthing awry?
When the theory predicts one thing, observation shows another, and you can't fix your theory.
What testable, repeatable scientific expiriment has been set up to demonstrate the formation of new, useful, novel information in a genome through random mutation? None? If you can't do that then how is it science and how is it any different than theology? It isn't any different than a belief.
That depends on how you define "useful" and "experiment". If you want evolution to consistently occur in a lab setting and produce noticeable changes, you haven't been paying attention to scale; you need planetary scale and time for the changes you want. Conversely, how would you test ID in a lab?
I don't feel that they should. I'm just pointing out that there should be many transitional animals if evolution occured through slight evolutionary changes as Darwin predicted. Why do we have hundreds of fossils from any given species that existed for several million years with no evolutionary change, yet the vast majority of animals do not have a clear evolutionary ancestor?
Punctuated equilibrium suggests that drastic changes in environment lead to rapid changes in genes over only a few generations. Thus, under stable conditions, you'd get much of the same stuff.
If evolution really did happen according to darwin, there should be no question whatsoever from the fossil record and from LIVING examples. Am I to believe that natural selection selected out the transitional species for every single animal on the planet and not one survives to this day? Does this really make sense to you?
For starters, some of the species living today may be transitional species from a later point of view; the whole definition is self-selecting. I also don't see why the fossil record must be clear for evolution to hold.
LIVING example.. not just the fossil record. And why are they so rare in the fossil record anyway? One would think we should find many, many more than a couple of questional examples.
Sorry, misread that one. See above.
You ignored the observations I linked to a few posts back, didn't you?
Nope.
Not sure what you mean without clarification on what I "muddled" but I'll admit it if I have done so... Also, who said anything about an omnipotent designer? I'm not a creationist. I'm more concerened with the "is" it design and leave the "who" and "why " to philosophers.
I already mentioned that you first stated that ID would lead to well-adapted organisms with no superfluous or harmful parts. Then, when I pointed out that this is not the case, you said it isn't necessary. Seeing as that was essentially the extent of the predictions of ID, you are left with nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Let's take the first article from the list, just for starters. Behe is blatantly ignoring freshman-level genetics when discussing pseudogenes; both tandem duplication and reverse transcription are well-known and extensively studied mechanisms to do what Behe says doesn't happen.
Tandem duplication and reverse transcription? LoL .. Other than fancy technical words, they provide nothing in the way of new novel information in a genome. This is what is nessicary to explain the evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum. Tandem duplication simply means multiple copies are made simultaneously from the same RNA strand...Reverse transcription is simply the reverse of DNA transcribing to RNA.. What do these prove? Absolutely nothing...
Furthermore, Behe himself has effectivly countered the first link:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_toresp.htm
Miller's argument is hugely exrapolated. The Type -III Secretory Apparatus may have some of the same protiens as the flagellum but it's a completely different machine. His argument is like saying because my bed has metal feet where it meets the floor and because my big screen TV has metal feet, thus the bed evolved into the TV. Furthermore, real world evidence seems to show that if anything did indeed evolve here, the Secretory Apparatus evolved from the fagellum:
It is strange that the TTSS system is so commonly promoted as the most likely starting point by many evolutionists since the TTSS system is supposed to have evolved hundreds of millions of years after flagellar evolution. That's right! There is good evidence to believe that the TTSS starting point arose from the fully formed flagellum and not the other way round.
Consider that the bacterial flagellum is found in both mesophilic, thermophilic, gram-positive, gram-negative, and spirochete bacteria while TTSS systems are restricted to a few gram-negative bacteria. Not only are TTSS systems restricted to gram-negative bacteria, but also to pathogenic gram-negative bacteria that specifically attack animals and plants . . . which supposedly evolved billions of years after flagellar motility had already evolved!
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Flagellum.html (scroll down to "Starting Point")
Here's a telling passage from that "expirimental" data:
A major role for gene co-option in the evolution of development has long been assumed, and many recent comparative developmental and genomic studies have lent support to this idea. Although there is relatively less known about the molecular basis of co-option events involving developmental pathways, much can be drawn from well-studied examples of the co-option of structural proteins.
Once again, absolutely nothing concrete. It's all based on assumption. just-so guesswork just doesn't cut it...
You fail reading comprehension; the rest of the sentence explains that these assumptions have supporting evidence.
Co-Option of structural protiens is simply derived from the fact that say Teeth and ToeNails have similar or the same protien in one of the positions in a long string of linked protiens. Thus the darwinian scientist says one cell co-opted a protien from another.. This is crap and like saying because my TV circuit board has a resistor and my PC circuit board has a resistor, one is derived from the other. Once again we have huge extrapolation based upon an irrelevant fact.
That depends on how you define "useful" and "experiment". If you want evolution to consistently occur in a lab setting and produce noticeable changes, you haven't been paying attention to scale; you need planetary scale and time for the changes you want. Conversely, how would you test ID in a lab?
Well the first step is trying to establish what is design and what is not. I'd start by taking irreducibly complex biological systems, start removing specific parts and see if it still works in any capacity. We can also laern alot by reverse engenieering biological systems. Scientists are doing this to some degree and are backed by companies with commercial interests. Spider silk is reported to be stronger than steel of similar diameter. The gekko's ability to walk on any surface is also of interest.
You ignored the observations I linked to a few posts back, didn't you?
Nope. So you just didn't like them? Care to explain why?
Because they are irrelevant to building new novel information in a genome. A nessicary and key step to any evolutionary proposal.
I already mentioned that you first stated that ID would lead to well-adapted organisms with no superfluous or harmful parts. Then, when I pointed out that this is not the case, you said it isn't necessary. Seeing as that was essentially the extent of the predictions of ID, you are left with nothing.
I said that might be one prediction and I don't recall you pointing out that is not the case. As far as I can tell every biological lifeform is well adapted to it's environment and doesn't contain superfluous or harmful parts.
Hey man, I respect your opinins and beliefs, I just don't agree with them. We can go back and forth like this till we have 600 megs worth of responses and counter responses, ultimately spinning our wheels and getting nowhere.
So the general synopsis of this thread is that you believe all life happened by chance and the intrinsic, purposeless, unguided properties of nature. I on the otherhand think there is more to it all than mere accidental natural processes. Is that a fair assesment?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 09, 2006, 11:36:38 pm by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Ok Novus, let's try somthing else. What to you personally is the most compelling evidence that evolution has occured?
Please, no links to other links which link still other links.. I'm asking on a personal level.
When I used to believe evolution was fact it was the notion that embryos went through evolutionary stages and that the human embryo at an early stage has gills and a tale. I now know this to be completely false.
The reason I lean toward design now is mainly due to the genetic code.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Novus
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
Well, RTyp06, I agree with you completely that throwing articles back and forth on increasingly esoteric biological topics isn't going to get us anywhere; that last batch of articles you linked to is basically way over my head; I'm a coder, not a molecular biologist, and my interest in this subject is not enough to convince me to get another Master's degree. Perhaps we've both been going at this the wrong way.
Let's try to summarise this thread instead: by your criteria, evolutionary models are inadequate because:
- The mechanism by which the first cells (DNA et.c.) were created is unknown.
- The mechanisms by which major changes in genetic makeup (e.g. from dinosaurs to birds) happen in such a way as to create radically different species are unknown. In other words, microevolution has been demonstrated and studied step-by-step but macroevolution hasn't.
I agree that these are to a great extent unknown areas to current biology and that examining these in more detail may falsify evolution or provide more supporting evidence for it. We seem only to differ in our reaction to this: from my point of view, there are no convincing reasons to believe evolution is false, but a lot of evidence that is consistent with it; the fossils that have been found can be interpreted in such a way that they fit into the evolutionary framework; the current selection of organisms suggests common ancestry that is consistent with evolution. From your point of view, the evolutionary explanation and the limited data allows practically any explanation to fit and the explanations are thus "just so" stories with no scientifc value. I see absence of evidence, you see evidence of absence. I accept evolution as a sound (albeit incomplete) explanation, you reject it as assuming matters that haven't been tested.
The ID reasoning I've seen always relies on trying to show that evolution is highly improbable or impossible; that organisms have changed in a way that is not explained by evolution. I rejected Dembski's reasoning about specified complexity on the grounds that it is full of holes and essentially circular. Behe's ideas make more sense, but he uses, as far as I can tell, absence of evidence as evidence of absence in his reasoning about irreducible complexity.
Thus, Behe's reasoning leads us to the point where our dialogue mirrors that of Behe and his supporters versus his critics; for Behe's idea to be credible he must show that it is impossible (or, at least, extremely unlikely) for some observed part of an organism to occur as a product of evolution; basically, that the intermediate steps are so bad that an organism exhibiting those has almost no chance of survival and reproduction. Again, our interpretations differ: you see potential proofs of Behe's ideas in the form of apparently irreducibly complex organs where I see a lack of imagination in finding explanations and a general lack of hard data either way.
Now, given two theories that may or may not be true, there are several ways to choose one over the other:
- Which theory makes the more specific predictions? I don't see any predictions at all coming from ID that can be tested, while evolution, at least in the microevolution case, gets quite specific and matches observations.
- Which theory makes less additional assumptions (Occam's razor)? Introducing a unknown designer seems like a bit of a stretch, while evolution is based on mechanisms that we know to exist: natural selection, mutation, et.c.
So, basically, my view is that evolution is the better theory because it explains more (even if it is shown to be wrong, it may be useful; consider how Newtonian mechanics are still applicable to many real-world cases), has survived more experimental challenges and doesn't require as dramatic world-view changes (I can see, though, that Occam's razor could slice the other way if you accept the existence of God, for example). Your view is that evolution is a bunch of guesswork that is desperately being patched up to fit observations and it'll fall apart sooner or later, and irreducible complexity exposes a weakness that will tear it apart.
None of this rules out evolution being false and ID being true, but I feel I've justified why evolution is the better working hypothesis.
Now, I was intending to write a quick retort before going to bed, and the Sun just started rising behind my back. Good night or whatever it is in your timezone.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
