|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2010 : 14:38:45 [Permalink]
|
| What is it you are trying to say, R? That is a LOOOoooog read and I would have no idea what point(s) in that paper you care to use in this discussion. Please place your arguments in your own words. That guy is not in here to discuss his paper with me. Thanks. |
 |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
 Posted - 12/24/2010 : 15:00:11 [Permalink]
|
| What I am saying is that your claim that "it is impossible it could have evolved" is incorrect. I provided a reference that shows a plausible evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum. Sorry if it's long, but the answer to the question is necessarily more complex than "it could not have happened". |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2010 : 15:50:53 [Permalink]
|
I don't have much time for this today but ultimately the idea that something that seems irreducibly complex and therefor couldn't have evolved naturally is both an appeal to ignorance and an appeal to incredulity. "I don't know how it could have evolved that way naturally, so it must have been intelligently designed." ID is built on those logical fallacies no matter who or what supposedly did the designing.
I'm rather shocked that JerryB clings to the fallacies after so many of the ID'ers prized examples were debunked years ago. But there you go...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2010 : 16:02:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
What is it you are trying to say, R? That is a LOOOoooog read and I would have no idea what point(s) in that paper you care to use in this discussion. Please place your arguments in your own words. That guy is not in here to discuss his paper with me. Thanks.
|
You are wrong when you say "I understand that it is impossible it could have evolved".
As a matter of fact, the flagellum could very well have evolved, and the paper R.Wreck linked to explained how.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2010 : 16:11:14 [Permalink]
|
I read the paper. Although well written and well referenced, I'm afraid it really says nothing.
He finds similar parts in several organisms. OK, we knew this already and he still leaves you hanging about how those similar parts all came together. What. Are these asexual organisms now interbreeding? :)
"Thornhill and Ussery (2000) summarized the general pathways by which systems with multiple required components may evolve. They delineate three gradual routes to such systems: parallel direct evolution (coevolution of components), elimination of functional redundancy (“scaffolding,” the loss of once necessary but now unnecessary components) and adoption from a different function (“cooption,” functional shift of components); a fourth route, serial direct evolution (change along a single axis), could not produce multiple-components-required systems."
Good Lord, Molly. Co-evolution of components? This is not evolution, but intelligent design. Pray tell how all these components could have the intelligence to foresee the future and KNOW that everyone else is evolving an ICS component, so they will evolve one as well and somehow the gods of Darwinism will wave a wand and it will all come together. A corporate board of directors must be organizing this.
As a whole, the entire paper comes across to me as lacking common sense and smacking of Lamarkianism.
You know, a fish develops a wart. The fish learns that he can use this wart to propel himself off a rock in the water. And as he uses the wart, the wart grows and becomes more complex. Then another fish develops two warts. Wow, he can now really speed off those rocks and before ya know it these warts morph into legs and he crawls out of the water to poof into a coconut crab.
It's all nonsense, R. Lamarkianism was laughed out of science many years ago.
But, if there are specific areas you wish to discuss in that paper, please let me know and we will go there.
As it stands, the paper did nothing to compel me to believe anything other than an ICS must be designed by intelligence and I stand by my original statement: an ICS is impossible to evolve via random mutation.
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2010 : 16:18:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I don't have much time for this today but ultimately the idea that something that seems irreducibly complex and therefor couldn't have evolved naturally is both an appeal to ignorance and an appeal to incredulity. "I don't know how it could have evolved that way naturally, so it must have been intelligently designed." ID is built on those logical fallacies no matter who or what supposedly did the designing.
I'm rather shocked that JerryB clings to the fallacies after so many of the ID'ers prized examples were debunked years ago. But there you go...
|
I understand that it is Christmas and this can wait, Kil. Enjoy your family.
I absolutely never stated "I don't know how it could have evolved that way naturally, so it must have been intelligently designed."
I have studied this in detail and stated that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a true ICS to come together without intelligence involved.
This has never been debunked other than in the eyes of our detractors. Debunk it now when you have the time.....;) |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2010 : 16:33:52 [Permalink]
|
JerryB:
I have studied this in detail and stated that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a true ICS to come together without intelligence involved. |
Yes. That may be but this one is easy. There is nothing that we see in life on earth that could not have evolved naturally. Therefor we have not seen a "true ICS" in any life-form. Case closed. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2010 : 16:40:30 [Permalink]
|
| Let me just add before I run that If my aunt had wheels, she'd be a wagon. Your ID hypothesis is at least that good, JerryB. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2010 : 17:04:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
JerryB:
I have studied this in detail and stated that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a true ICS to come together without intelligence involved. |
Yes. That may be but this one is easy. There is nothing that we see in life on earth that could not have evolved naturally. Therefor we have not seen a "true ICS" in any life-form. Case closed.
|
Oh my. There are so many ICSs found in nature that could not have evolved via random mutation, I don't know where to begin.
But one of my favorites is the human cardio/respiratory system.
Here, we have a true ICS.
Lungs oxygenate blood which a heart pumps through arteries and veins and a couple of kidneys filter this so that the toxins are removed.
So which component can you remove and still have a living organism? If a surgeon takes out the heart will the system still function? Let's rip out the lungs and see what happens. Same with arteries, veins and kidneys. Yup, a true ICS.
But how could this have evolved? Did someone or something have meetings and agree....OK, you evolve the heart, You two evolve some veins and arteries, Jose, you need to evolve some lungs and this will all come together.
LMAO......It is IDists who are dumb?  |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2010 : 17:07:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Let me just add before I run that If my aunt had wheels, she'd be a wagon. Your ID hypothesis is at least that good, JerryB.
|
Not necessarily. She could just be riding a motorcycle. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2010 : 19:54:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I read the paper. Although well written and well referenced, I'm afraid it really says nothing.
He finds similar parts in several organisms. OK, we knew this already and he still leaves you hanging about how those similar parts all came together. What. Are these asexual organisms now interbreeding? :)
"Thornhill and Ussery (2000) summarized the general pathways by which systems with multiple required components may evolve. They delineate three gradual routes to such systems: parallel direct evolution (coevolution of components), elimination of functional redundancy (“scaffolding,” the loss of once necessary but now unnecessary components) and adoption from a different function (“cooption,” functional shift of components); a fourth route, serial direct evolution (change along a single axis), could not produce multiple-components-required systems."
Good Lord, Molly. Co-evolution of components? This is not evolution, but intelligent design. Pray tell how all these components could have the intelligence to foresee the future and KNOW that everyone else is evolving an ICS component, so they will evolve one as well and somehow the gods of Darwinism will wave a wand and it will all come together. A corporate board of directors must be organizing this.
As a whole, the entire paper comes across to me as lacking common sense and smacking of Lamarkianism.
You know, a fish develops a wart. The fish learns that he can use this wart to propel himself off a rock in the water. And as he uses the wart, the wart grows and becomes more complex. Then another fish develops two warts. Wow, he can now really speed off those rocks and before ya know it these warts morph into legs and he crawls out of the water to poof into a coconut crab.
It's all nonsense, R. Lamarkianism was laughed out of science many years ago.
But, if there are specific areas you wish to discuss in that paper, please let me know and we will go there.
As it stands, the paper did nothing to compel me to believe anything other than an ICS must be designed by intelligence and I stand by my original statement: an ICS is impossible to evolve via random mutation.
|
Your problem seems to be that you are attributing some sort of intent and/or directionality to evolutionary processes. There is none. None of the components that make up what you claim to be an ireducalbly complex system evolved to fulfill a future function, and no one (other than you) is claiming that they did. They evolved, then due to mutation and selection pressure, they may have taken on new roles. No magic intervention was required.
It has been said that 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. I think this shows that evolution has no specific goal, or alternately, that your designer is horribly inept.
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2010 : 02:37:30 [Permalink]
|
JerryB:
Oh my. There are so many ICSs found in nature that could not have evolved via random mutation, I don't know where to begin.
But one of my favorites is the human cardio/respiratory system.
Here, we have a true ICS. |
But since we know that there are more primitive cardio/respiratory systems, some not even including a heart as we see them in mammals, it's obvious that the system humans use evolved from these less complex (or different use parts) and systems. That we need all of these organs to survive begs the question. You can call it ICS if you like but you can't say that it didn't evolve naturally from less complex systems. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate, with convincing evidence, that our current cardiovascular and respiratory systems did not evolve, in order to claim an ID.
Yeah. We know there are systems that won't work if all of the parts are not there. Duh. The question is how did they became what they are? Just saying a system won't work if parts are removed tells us nothing at all. And given the more primitive versions of these systems, how can you assume that we didn't naturally evolve the system we have because it gave us a survival advantage in the niches that we and other mammals fill?
ID fails under its own presumptions. Bringing up our cardiovacular/respiratory system, our eyes, our ears or a bacteria's flagellum as ICS in there present form, and jumping to the conclusion that these systems couldn't have evolved, and are not continuing to evolve, is just lazy thinking. All of these systems have evolutionary explanations. Your job then is to show us how these systems couldn't have evolved in the face of plausible explanations for how they did evolve. Good luck with that. The overwhelming consensus of evolutionary biologists say you're wrong. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2010 : 06:03:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I read the paper. Although well written and well referenced, I'm afraid it really says nothing. |
Then I'm afraid you didn't really understood it.
He finds similar parts in several organisms. OK, we knew this already and he still leaves you hanging about how those similar parts all came together. What. Are these asexual organisms now interbreeding? :) |
More blatant lack of understanding of the natural world on your part. Homologies are an awesome example of prediction from the theory of evolution. And bacteria do actually "interbreed" in the sense that they exchange DNA with each other. DNA for building flagella can be passed between them. What you believe to be an irreducibly complex building part of the flagella could be passed from another organism.
In your ridiculous analogy of the chain-saw, the chain could have come from a bicycle.
Says man man full of incredulity.
Co-evolution of components? This is not evolution, but intelligent design. |
I don't understand why you have such a hard time to accept such a possibility. Different traits in living beings doesn't change one at a time, but they all change gradually. It wasn't necessary for the giraffe to develop the spots in its fur before it could start growing tall necks. Your inability to contemplate co-evolution of functions is a character flaw of yours, not a flaw in evolutionary theory.
Pray tell how all these components could have the intelligence to foresee the future and KNOW that everyone else is evolving an ICS component, |
Anthropomorphisation of non-human objects are common among children, where they assume that the things have a will of their own. You seem to think "Darwinian evolution" requires this (is that why you also mention Lamarkism?) but that's just projection from your part.
| so they will evolve one as well and somehow the gods of Darwinism will wave a wand and it will all come together. |
You're mistaking evolution and ID. It's the ID Creator that according to IDists waived its magic wand which made all these incredible things to come together.
If you can't even address basic tenets of evolutionary theory, then how are we to take your arguments seriously?
| A corporate board of directors must be organizing this. |
As opposed to God?
As a whole, the entire paper comes across to me as lacking common sense and smacking of Lamarkianism. |
You're being insulting doesn't advance your side of the argument.
| You know, a fish develops a wart. The fish learns that he can use this wart to propel himself off a rock in the water. And as he uses the wart, the wart grows and becomes more complex. Then another fish develops two warts. Wow, he can now really speed off those rocks and before ya know it these warts morph into legs and he crawls out of the water to poof into a coconut crab. |
Wow, what an impressive argument!
Either you're an disingenuous insulting git, or you're clueless about evolution.
But it does give me some insight into how you believe that the world came about.
It's all nonsense, R. Lamarkianism was laughed out of science many years ago. |
You must be thinking of Lysenkoism. While Lamarckism is discredited for multicellular organisms, some scientists maintain there are certain aspects of Lamarckism in play for bacteria.
As I wrote above, bacteria do exchange DNA with each other, even though they are considered asexual. After mitosis, we have "offspring" with acquired traits.
As it stands, the paper did nothing to compel me to believe anything other than an ICS must be designed by intelligence and I stand by my original statement: an ICS is impossible to evolve via random mutation. |
Like Kil said, a true ICS will be evidence of ID - good luck finding one though. The flagella obviously isn't an ICS.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 12/25/2010 : 06:16:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
LMAO......It is IDists who are dumb?
|
Yes.
Especially when they bring arguments as stupid as yours.
Michael Behe brought his A-game to the Dover trial, and couldn't even convince a Christian, politically conservative judge, that ID was anything more than creationism in disguise. He even admitted that we had to lower scientific standards until we could include astrology before ID could be considered.
Are you better suited to prove Intelligent Design?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2010 : 08:26:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Originally posted by JerryB
I read the paper. Although well written and well referenced, I'm afraid it really says nothing.
He finds similar parts in several organisms. OK, we knew this already and he still leaves you hanging about how those similar parts all came together. What. Are these asexual organisms now interbreeding? :)
"Thornhill and Ussery (2000) summarized the general pathways by which systems with multiple required components may evolve. They delineate three gradual routes to such systems: parallel direct evolution (coevolution of components), elimination of functional redundancy (“scaffolding,” the loss of once necessary but now unnecessary components) and adoption from a different function (“cooption,” functional shift of components); a fourth route, serial direct evolution (change along a single axis), could not produce multiple-components-required systems."
Good Lord, Molly. Co-evolution of components? This is not evolution, but intelligent design. Pray tell how all these components could have the intelligence to foresee the future and KNOW that everyone else is evolving an ICS component, so they will evolve one as well and somehow the gods of Darwinism will wave a wand and it will all come together. A corporate board of directors must be organizing this.
As a whole, the entire paper comes across to me as lacking common sense and smacking of Lamarkianism.
You know, a fish develops a wart. The fish learns that he can use this wart to propel himself off a rock in the water. And as he uses the wart, the wart grows and becomes more complex. Then another fish develops two warts. Wow, he can now really speed off those rocks and before ya know it these warts morph into legs and he crawls out of the water to poof into a coconut crab.
It's all nonsense, R. Lamarkianism was laughed out of science many years ago.
But, if there are specific areas you wish to discuss in that paper, please let me know and we will go there.
As it stands, the paper did nothing to compel me to believe anything other than an ICS must be designed by intelligence and I stand by my original statement: an ICS is impossible to evolve via random mutation.
|
Your problem seems to be that you are attributing some sort of intent and/or directionality to evolutionary processes. There is none. None of the components that make up what you claim to be an ireducalbly complex system evolved to fulfill a future function, and no one (other than you) is claiming that they did. They evolved, then due to mutation and selection pressure, they may have taken on new roles. No magic intervention was required.
It has been said that 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. I think this shows that evolution has no specific goal, or alternately, that your designer is horribly inept.
|
No, I'm not attributing direction to the evolutionary process. It seems to me that is exactly what the paper you sent me to is proposing.
And yes, it is true that about 99% of species are extinct.
What does this show, an inept designer? No, it shows evolution for what it really is: a devolutionary process where complexity in the process is nonexistent.
Genomes do not order over time, they disorder as the second law of thermodynamics dictates they will. In fact, they disorder to the point that the genome goes into mutational melt-down or what some term error catastrophe and the population simply dies.
So, we are not going to propose the building of anything in the evolutionary process, flagella or anything else. The destruction of one, maybe; but not the building of one.
You guys seem to have it exactly bass-ackward.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
