Posted on 12/01/2005 10:55:04 AM PST by curiosity
Edited on 12/01/2005 11:11:54 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
On what basis do you claim that ID theory isn't science?
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1958, p. 171.
I think that's a pretty big hole. There is no way a bacterial flagellum, which has some forty odd proteins necessary for it's function, could be the result of "numerous, successive, slight modifications." Only about ten of those proteins have been shown to have any other potential functionality. How did the other thirty accumulate? This is an very simple organism we're talking about. The theories I've read trying to explain it away simply aren't persuasive, because they always seem to miss the point.
Look, I'm not saying there's no room for argument here, and I'm not trying to start one. I just have never met any group of people quite as dogmatic as evolutionists. I have yet to be involved in a discussion with one that didn't descend into name-calling and condescension. And I don't even consider myself an ID proponent. I'm just what you might call an evolution sceptic, that's all.
On what basis do you claim that ID theory isn't science?
Sheesh, where to begin?
How about the fact that there is no evidence to support it, and it requires a supernatural explanation?
It's no more "science" than astrology is. Even its most prominent defender admitted that on the stand.
And your goods are?
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1958, p. 171. I think that's a pretty big hole.
It would be, if such an organ had ever been found. But that's not the case.
There is no way a bacterial flagellum, which has some forty odd proteins necessary for it's function, could be the result of "numerous, successive, slight modifications." Only about ten of those proteins have been shown to have any other potential functionality. How did the other thirty accumulate? This is an very simple organism we're talking about. The theories I've read trying to explain it away simply aren't persuasive, because they always seem to miss the point.
Even Behe had to admit (once he was under oath) that "irreducible complexity" hasn't been shown. Structures that he had previously claimed were irreducibly complex were demonstrably not.
I will eagerly admit that we don't know the intermediary steps for every single structure. That is not a fatal problem for evolution, though. Holes in our knowledge are being filled all the time, and the new evidence has always provided additional support for the ToE.
Read Darwin's quote again. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Such a complex organ has not been found. Darwin's right - if it could be found, then the ToE falls apart. But just because he lists possible falsifications doesn't mean that the theory has been falsified.
Look, I'm not saying there's no room for argument here, and I'm not trying to start one. I just have never met any group of people quite as dogmatic as evolutionists. I have yet to be involved in a discussion with one that didn't descend into name-calling and condescension.
If that's been your experience, then I'm sorry. I haven't participated in that, and neither have the scientists that I know here. It still doesn't alter the vast amount of evidence to support the ToE, and the absence of a single other legitimate scientific theory to address the evidence.
I disagree.
First of all, as it now stands, evolution has no theory of abiogenesis, which makes it kind of like a high-rise built without a foundation or the first three floors. Since it has no explanation for how the whole process got started in the first place, are you going to say that evolution does not therefore qualify as science?
Secondly, if I were to find a tablet on the moon with writing on it, would I need to know the name of the alien race which put it there or know which star they hailed from to say that it was the creation of an intellegent being rather than a random accident caused by micro-meteoric impacts and solar wind?
Neither does ID need to name the Designer in order to infer one from the complexity of even "simple" organisms or the mathematical odds of such a thing appearing by chance (which very quickly start to compare to the number of atoms in the universe multiplied by the number of seconds since the estimated time of the big bang).
It's interesting that when a paper proporting ID appeared in the Smithsonian's journal, it was not contested on the actual merits of its content. Rather, the "scientific" establishment pitched a hissy-fit until the Smithsonian apologized for daring to let a paper on ID appear on its pages; nevermind that it had gone through and passed the normal review cycle necessary to become published.
The instant that happened, your side of the debate lost all credibility as the supposed "guardians" of pure science, and became the guardians of a philosophical dogma instead.
Is the penguin an example of bird-micro-evolution, or was it just created to swim instead of fly? How about the hyena? Was it created as a hyena, or is it an example of cat-micro-evolution (gone awry)? How about the porpoise? Mammal micro-evolution, or deliberately created as a sort-of-fish-with-lungs?
It is confusing because the terms used are very fuzzy. In its broadest and strictest definition, "evolution" is nothing more than a simple class of system dynamic -- it is formally described in General Systems Theory in mathematics. All evolution requires is a source of pattern variation and a pattern filter. In classical Darwinian evolution, the source of pattern variation is "random mutation" and the pattern filter is "natural selection", but those are far from the only possible mechanisms that can supply the necessary dynamics in nature.
An example of fluid genomic variation generation is simple genomic automata, the incremental changes to the genome that occur each generation as different genomes interact with each other. This is pretty much a one-way hash function in that the process makes it virtually impossible for future generations to have the genetic characteristics of several generations prior, and this adds up pretty quickly. Humans stir the genetic pot pretty thoroughly, and we still manage to generate distinctive ethnic gene pools in only dozens of generations. There are actually many mechanisms that cause this type of irreversible drift in the population, and they are both rapid and fluid in many cases. The fluidity is a result of the fact that gene expression is not a boolean thing where it is either on or off (which many people misconceive of it being), and one can carry a great many genes that are only partially expressed or not expressed at all. This is one of the reasons most genome combinations won't kill a person or generate a non-viable result; odd new genetic features are often expressed weakly until they have survived enough generations to be reinforced. During this period, the weakly expressed gene has the opportunity to cooperate or compete with other genetic features that may be floating around in any given set of genes. As a result, genomic drift over generations tends to look very much like a type 4 cellular automata in a fashion that we are only beginning to be able to predict.
But yes, random mutation in the classic "radiation destroying DNA" sense is a slow and marginal process for speciation. All you really need is to keep two genetic pools isolated long enough that they slowly drift apart via the genomic drift. The more generations they are allowed to drift independently, the higher the probability that a given mix of genes between the two will not produce a viable result. Wait long enough, and the probability approaches zero.
First of all, the evidence is that there is no way in hell that life spontaniously happened on its own. Evolution has exactly zero explanation for abiogenesis.
Secondly, so what if it does require a supernatural explanation? Are we interested in understanding the truth of how the universe works, or just in propping up non-theism?
See also post #147.
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Now why do I think Behe must have repeated that quote in his own mind a few thousand times before coming out with his IC nonsense?
What an absurd argument! If you have no interest in an intellectually honest discussion, why participate? No one has ever suggested that you can turn one animal into another by selective breeding; nor that nature would do so by the process of mutations and survival differentials over many generations. But cats, dogs, cattle, horses, swine, etc., have all evolved within comparative recent history from earlier types into the present types. What is there in that you feel the need to deny?
What has this to do with my question about proving macro-evolution experimentally?
Unfortunately, they often try to inject their moonbat ideas into the public school curriculum, which then leads to lawsuits in Federal court, which in turn makes it a national issue.
Seeing as how it wasn't the "moonbat" Christians that took the Ten Commandments and prayer out of public schools, rather had those rights taken away from them by lawsuits in Federal court, just who injected moonbat ideas into the public school curriculum in the first place?
Why can't atheists be just be honest about what their agenda is?
"Actually, I though evos believed not that we descended from apes, but that we had a common ancestor."
We have a common ancestor with the current living apes, but that common ancestor was also an ape (but not one yo've ever seen in a zoo) as we are ourselves. So, no, we did not descend from any living apes, we have a common ancestor with the living apes.
I take it then, that in your view they are examples of bird and cat micro-evolution from some original proto-bird-kind and proto-cat-kind. Are humans an example of micro-evolution from some original proto-primate-kind? Why not?
The porpose, I don't know--did it evolve, or was it created as a kind of chimera, like the duck-billed platypus, by a God who loves variety?
By what criteria do you decide what evolved and what didn't? (Note: the inverse of this is -- by what criteria do you decide what was designed, and what wasn't?)
What has this to do with my question about proving macro-evolution experimentally?
Because the experiments are all around us, asking to be observed? Because experiments aren't exclusively conducted in a laboratory by guys in white coats with Bunsen burners? Because observation coupled with forensics, field work, gene mapping, etc. is a valid way to gather evidence and draw conclusions? Just some thoughts.
BTW, I have to "Bugg" out for the evening, but I want to let you know, you really are a pleasure to converse with.
Well, I don't know that Behe's testimony constitutes that kind of an expres admission. I read excerpts of it being bandied about, and there were a whole lot of inferential leaps that seemed to be taking place, along with some syllogisms, by those arriving at conclusions like that based on what he said. That sounds like the gloss put on his testimony by others. Can you point me to where Behe testified that bacterial flagellum have been shown not to be irreducibly complex? I know many were mocking his testimony, but it seemed to be a lot of spin by people with an interest in doing so, not hard quotes that amounted to simple admissions. I'm not saying he didn't, I just didn't see that in his testimony. Of course, I didn't read the whole transcript, just portions posted on the internet.
Like I said, I don't consider myself an ID proponent, but I do think they get a bum rap, being caricatured as wild-eyed creationists when they seem to make valid points. What gets me is the way so many evolutionists refuse to even consider the possibility that something other than random mutation and natural selection could possibly be at work when reviewing or discussing evidence or theory, and act as if anyone who does is an idiot or a heretic. I certainly consider the possibility that random mutation and selection is at work, and I'm a Christian. Why does it seem easier for me to do that than it does for those on the naturalist/materialist side to treat opposing views with some respect? Even if they can be deconstructed and disproved? Heck, Alan Sokal's hoax article was treated seriously, or at least did not subject him to derision, until he later revealed he just threw a bunch of politically correct pseudo-science together because he knew the editors would like it. He said he just wanted to prove that you could get something published and accepted if the political slant was "correct."
I'm pretty well educated, open to arguments, and really couldn't care less if rock-solid proof of evolution, or rock-solid proof disproving evolution, turned up. I don't pretend to know what mechanism God chose to establish life, so it would have no effect on my faith. All I want is the inquiry to be an honest, dispassionate search for the truth. The tone of the argument I get from evolutionists often smacks, however, of that old "mustn't-allow-a-divine-foot-in-the-door" intransigence.
I have no reason to believe you're unwilling to engage in civil discourse on the subject, but I do sense you don't think the subject is worthy of a debate at all. Don't you think that a vigorous, substantive debate with ID proponents would be a good thing? A way to educate people about the evidence, and to hone and strengthen the discipline by addressing arguments in opposition? Perhaps, even (gasp) acknowledging an occasional flaw or inconsistency (even as you were thrashing your opponents' arguments the rest of the time) for the good of science and the integrity of the inquiry? I think it would be good for everyone. It would prove that the quest for knowledge, as opposed to the quest to impose knowledge, is still very much alive.
First of all, as it now stands, evolution has no theory of abiogenesis, which makes it kind of like a high-rise built without a foundation or the first three floors.
That's not a good analogy. The architect isn't expected to create her own dirt, she basically just needs to understand how much of a load it can hold up without sagging.
Secondly, if I were to find a tablet on the moon with writing on it, would I need to know the name of the alien race which put it there or know which star they hailed from to say that it was the creation of an intellegent being rather than a random accident caused by micro-meteoric impacts and solar wind?
But how would you know the object is a "tablet", and that whatever squiggles you see on its surface is "writing"?
Neither does ID need to name the Designer in order to infer one from the complexity of even "simple" organisms or the mathematical odds of such a thing appearing by chance (which very quickly start to compare to the number of atoms in the universe multiplied by the number of seconds since the estimated time of the big bang).Oh c'mon. Surely you've been around these parts to know that that's one of the oldest entries in the Kreationist Kornocopia of Kanards.
What do you think is the cause of this genomic drift? Is its function perhaps one of varying the gene pool to ensure survival through diversity? If so, doesn't that sound like something that would take an awfully long time to develop, shall we say, in a materialistic way? I'm just trying to understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.