|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 12/25/2010 : 18:47:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
You sent me to one of Ken Miller's pages, a scientist I am familiar with, one that I respect and one with which I agree on a lot-and disagree with on some of his points.
Here is a statement I agree with: "the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex."
No, not as it stands, but let's clarify that-it isn't irreducibly complex until we get down to the ICS itself. For example, a car engine is not ICS until we break it down to the core ICS components. I can remove the air filter, nothing will happen. I can remove cowlings and heat covers and fuel filters....
But I will eventually get down to the core components that comprise the ICS. Only then will it be an ICS. Same with the flagellum. |
This is odd. Earlier, I said:| In any case, the flagellum argument has been refuted by trained biologists in peer-reviewed journals, so there's no need to rehash it here. Just because you have been unable to counter their arguments isn't my problem. |
You replied:| I beg to differ with you. Please name those papers and reference what journals posted them. |
After I provided some information, you answer that you agree that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex?
So you're left saying (I think) that while the flagellum isn't an ICS, if you take away enough parts to make it an ICS, then it will be an ICS. Which sounds good enough on paper (or on some internet forum), but you'd need to do some work.
| Where I begin to disagree is when he begins to cite other species showing much simpler flagellar structures and seems to imply that THIS flagellum could have evolved from them. Nope, because they don't interbreed. |
As Kil noted elsewhere, you've missed the point.
He also points out flagellar structures in other species that are missing some of the parts in Behe's particular structure. They still function.
OK, this doesn't surprise me because they are not the same design. But I've got money on the tenet that we could boil them all down into their own ICSs as well. The point is moot. |
Huh? This is insane! You're essentially saying Well, yeah, there are structures like the flagellum that are less complex, but I bet some of them are ICS so ICS is true. It's like you're starting with the assumption: there are ICS, and so ICS must be true!
As to the papers he cites, I am familiar with all but a couple. He states, "many have pointed out the poor reasoning of recasting the classic argument from design in the modern language of biochemistry."
OK, but that is a far cry from believing that these papers debunk design and show how the flagellum evolved. They do not. |
None of them claimed to show how the flagellum evolved. Miller clearly states his point:However complex Dembski's analysis, the scientific problem with his calculations is almost too easy to spot. By treating the flagellum as a "discrete combinatorial object" he has shown only that it is unlikely that the parts flagellum could assemble spontaneously. Unfortunately for his argument, no scientist has ever proposed that the flagellum or any other complex object evolved that way. Dembski, therefore, has constructed a classic 'straw man' and blown it away with an irrelevant calculation.
By treating the flagellum as a discrete combinatorial object he has assumed in his calculation that no subset of the 30 or so proteins of the flagellum could have biological activity. As we have already seen, this is wrong. Nearly a third of those proteins are closely related to components of the TTSS, which does indeed have biological activity. A calculation that ignores that fact has no scientific validity.
More importantly, Dembski's willingness to ignore the TTSS lays bare the underlying assumption of his entire approach towards the calculation of probabilities and the detection of 'design.' He assumes what he is trying to prove. |
That bolding there was mine, because it's just what you tried to do above.
A few of the papers he cites are nothing more than computer programs with code built in them to make complexity arise out of simplicity.
So what, it's a computer and one can write a program to make it do virtually anything you want it to.
In fact, he cites Schneider's paper on one of his computer programs. I had the pleasure of debating Dr. Schneider one on one several years back on this very paper. He did not do well..... |
And who are you, again? Is that debate (or a transcript) available?
Miller quotes Behe and I'll pass it on here:| An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe 1996b) |
Yup. Behe nailed that one. |
Hardly. As Miller notes, this was a "a desperation punch that just might win the fight in the final round." Yet, years later it has no grounding. The ideas upon which it was founded have been shown to be flawed and adherents follow it because they want to, and not because there is any compelling reason to do so. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 12/25/2010 18:50:37 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2010 : 22:33:10 [Permalink]
|
JerryB:
I don't know anything about creationism because I am not one. And evolution DOES occur in a closed system. A greenhouse is a closed system. You don't think evolution could occur in one if given enough time? It also occurs to me that I may not be following you here. |
First of all, religious creationist or not, appealing to an intelligence to do the designing more than suggests that something both powerful and outside of ourselves is doing the heavy lifting. Call it what you will…
A greenhouse is not a closed system. Plants would not grow if there was no energy input into the environment. Whether it's the sun, or grow lights or some other method, the system is receiving enough energy or it will not be viable. Also, if there are any people maintaing such a system, that would also count as energy input.
JerryB:
Any physicist I could send you to you would be immediately branded a creationist. |
Try me. My point is that if you are correct, most physicists will have to agree with you. How about sending out some letters to random physicists? Ask the question.
And no. If you can find a physicist who is qualified to talk about the second law of thermal dynamics as it applies to evolution, that is not an appeal to an authority. That's a source. All of your crap about design engineers is an appeal to authority because they are not qualified to talk about how physics applies to evolutionary biology.
JerryB:
If we agree that an ICS cannot function without all of it's parts in existence so that the system IS functioning; how then would--and how then could, natural selection select for those parts? |
So how about if you do this. Get serious about learning how natural selection works. I’m not here to be your teacher.
JerryB.
It isn't functioning to begin with! Nothing not working would be selected here. Are you with me on this? |
When a part of the jaw became a part of the middle ear, it changed function. Why is it that you think the parts we have now were always “intended” to fulfill their current rolls in our anatomy? And that’s not even getting into new structures (a realignment of cells by way of mutation that conferred a benefit on the species.) Our inards have been evolving for around a billion years. (Going back to the first multicellular life.) Is that not enough time to for our innards to have evolved as they have? (By the way. It's not a particularly good design. Sure it gets the job done but I'll bet just about any design engineer could have come up with something better. The problem is that while we do keep what is beneficial in terms of survival, that doesn't mean what we have evolved is best case. Just look at how many things go wrong and ask yourself, is this the best an intelligent designer could do?)
As for the logical fallacy of and appeal to incredulity, you keep stating over and over that current design gives the appearance of a designer (to you).
For example you said:
| In fact, that is exactly what many design engineers do. They design weed eaters, coffee pots, lawn mowers, automobiles, etc. that work. Why would we muse anything but design when we examine a complex ICS such as a flagellum? |
You come right out and state that other explanations are not necessary because it looks so obvious to YOU. Clearly any other explanation like natural selection must be ruled out because, god damnit, it looks designed!
What you said above is an argument from incredulity or ignorance. But I have tried to be kind to you so I stuck with "incredulity."
JeryB.
Yes, I have had logic and understand logical fallacies. |
Could have fooled me…
JerryB.
You have no theories in your philosophy. To get to the theory level, one starts at the observation level, does lab testing and forms a hypothesis. A paper is published and other scientists do testing. Once the testing is peer-reviewed and agreed on by consensus; only then you have a theory. |
Ummmm… So you are going to school me on the sci-method? You may not be a creationist, but the above argument is one of their favorites. Guess what. Evolution has passed every test you have named and is one of the best supported theories in all of science. It really doesn’t matter whether you like its status or not. But check me out on this. Evolution is a theory and a good one. ID is nothing more than a hypothesis that defies testing in general, (a designer did it is not a testable hypothesis) but has gone down in flames when it asserts that individual claims, like those of bacterial flagellum, could not have arisen naturally.
By the way. You said “Once the testing is peer-reviewed and agreed on by consensus; only then you have a theory.” Yes. I’ve been mentioning that consensus. What ID lacks is anything close to a consensus. So I’m happy to see that you consider evolution a theory and ID a hypothesis. Now if only there were ways to test for ID…
For a guy who isn’t a creationist, you do seem to be pulling from their playbook:
JerrB.
You guys just seem to think that when one observes that birds may have morphed from dinosaurs, and when other scientists say cool, sounds reasonable to me, it is a theory of science.
No, far from it. And this will never be a theory because how would you ever go in time to do the testing?
So consensus in science isn't science. Now in all fairness to you, if it is consensus on lab testing, that's a different critter. |
And in this way, you can dismiss every transitional species (that's what creationists do) and really any inference made by paleontologists and evolutionary biologists looking at and interpreting the significance of fossils. You can wave away all pre-historical science just as the creationists do and claim that evolution is not a theory. So all five of you are in agreement on that one. Should I post the crackpot index?
And yet, so far you have not shown us how our innards could not have evolved naturally. Because you can’t.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2010 : 22:55:11 [Permalink]
|
Well, this is too much to let slide.Originally posted by JerryB
A greenhouse is a closed system. |
Bwwwwaahahahahahahaaha!
But let me go back a few posts and address a whole bunch of stuff, not necessarily in order...| 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. |
Random mutation isn't synonymous with evolutionary theory, so that's a nice strawman you're starting with.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? |
If that's how they think that modern evolutionary theory describes what happened, then yes, they're dumb if they think they know enough to criticize the science. Really, it's called the arrogance of ignorance.| Genomes do not order over time, they disorder as the second law of thermodynamics dictates they will. |
Since the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLOT) is a mathematical description of heat transfer, you'll have to show your math that proves that changes to DNA molecules (a genome) which confer whole-organism survival benefits would, if they occurred, be things we have never seen before in nature, like heat moving from something cold to something hot without an external supply of energy.| 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. |
"In fact?" Citation, please.| 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. |
I'll wait until I see your SLOT math before agreeing or disagreeing with this, since I don't see how SLOT says anything about how a length of DNA may or may not change. From a genomics point-of-view, that is. Clearly, SLOT applies as always at the atomic and molecular levels, but those interactions don't "know" anything about what may or may not confer survivability benefits on an entire species, and obviously don't prevent genetic mutations (for good or bad) anyway.
| The second law prohibits that. Does it not bother you at all that your philosophy seems to violate the most basic laws of science? |
SLOT says that temperatures in a closed system will tend to equalize, so how does it prohibit (for example) a single mutation in a beta-globin gene from conferring resistance to malaria?
(Of course, the idea that SLOT "prohibits" anything is an ignorant statement all by itself, since scientific laws are nothing more than descriptions of phenomena for which we have observed no or few exceptions. The "prohibits" construction comes from mistaking scientific language for common language, in which legal mandates - "laws" - seek to prohibit certain activities. Nevermind that the analogy fails horribly from the get-go, since laws passed by legislatures don't actually prohibit anything, they just impose penalties upon being caught engaging in particular behaviors.)| I have calculated the entropy of the human genome and it increases every generation. Wanna see the math? |
Yes, I do. I want to see the heat calculations as defined by SLOT applied to the whole of the human genome for even a single instance of mitosis.It does, however, refute Darwinism wherein it is posited that highly complex organisms sprang from a simple, common ancestor.
Genomic entropy would have had to decrease steadily over time for order to increase. |
What is "genomic entropy" and what does it have to do with SLOT?| Then why does the thread seem to postulate there is no such thing as an ICS? |
Nobody should be postulating any such thing. The only disagreement is that you think that a "designer" is required for ICS to exist, while biologists think that natural evolutionary processes are sufficient to "design" lots of stuff. This is another language hurdle, with design advocates conflating two different meanings of the word "design" in a pathetic attempt to prove that God exists.| There most obviously is and represented in our lives by such systems as sewing machines, lawn mowers, fishing reels all the way to eyes and cardio/vascular systems. |
Every instance of an ICS in which we humans witnessed its design was designed by humans. Humans have neither witnessed nor tested even a single ICS which was designed by some other intelligence. The evidence, therefore, must insist that ICS in biology was designed by humans. At least, that is the logical conclusion to that particular argument. Most design advocates stop in the middle, though, and feebly wave their hands around, protesting that they don't know anything about "the designer."| And please remember that science is not accomplished via consensus. Science is advanced through experimentation. There are many cases in science where the overall consensus was just wrong, from the belief that colds are caught from a chill to the infamous notion that the sun orbits the earth. |
Please provide citations which demonstrate the truth of your assertion that "colds are caught from a chill" and "the sun orbits the earth" were ever scientific consensuses.| Can I get a reference from you on the bacteria exchanging DNA with each other? |
You've never heard of horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer? Huh. I can't say I'm surprised by your ignorance of modern biology given your arrogance in making pronouncements about it.| I believe you are thinking of viruses exchanging genetic material with their hosts. |
No, he wasn't.| Bacteria don't interbreed at all. They reproduce asexually. |
Which doesn't prevent horizontal gene transfers.| And if they did, biological law would prohibit cross species interbreeding. |
Which biological law would that be? Citations, please.| My point was that this is an ICS. If you don't believe this, I challenge you to remove any of the parts and explain how that chainsaw can still cut down a tree. |
You don't think a chainsaw could be used as an axe? Sure, it wouldn't work well, but trees aren't generally very difficult to damage. Given enough time, one could cut down a tree with a nail file.| I learned it sitting in college classrooms. |
Your comments here demonstrate that either you didn't learn it very well, or that your teachers sucked.| They certainly didn't do this when I was a science major in college. |
How long ago was that, anyway? Horizontal gene transfer was first described in 1959, and the evidence has only been piling up since then.| I believe just as do design engineers: All design is begun at the quantum level. |
Most designers I know don't know squat about quantum anything, they just look up materials properties in books.| Quantum mechanics is the designer. |
How so?| If one wants to call this intelligent packet of QM God, then that is fine with me as I certainly call it that. |
What is an "intelligent packet of QM," and why would anyone call such a thing "God?"| Please examine the flagellum with an electron microscope and tell me that is not a machine. |
Since no definition of "machine" that I'm familiar with requires a designer, it is irrelevant wether a flagellum is a machine or not.| Look at the stator and the rotor as is found in an electric motor, examine the bushings and the propeller. |
An analogy does not create an identity, even if the word "machine" had any relevance here.| So, other than one ICS being in an organism and the other not what the heck is the difference? They are both ICSs. |
Indeed! All the ICS for which we know the provenance were created by humans. Are you claiming that biological ICS are human-made, too? If not, why not?| But I most certainly could use a twist on that without encroaching on logical fallacy: If I can show that an object could NOT have been produced naturally and if I can detect design, would it not be logical to conclude design at that point? |
Please begin to demonstrate both parts of your premise. You haven't even started, yet. Instead, you've made a bunch of claims without evidenciary support.| It would be impossible to show that something so complex was produced as a result of random mutations. |
Nobody claims that complex things are produced by random mutations. There's a lot more to evolutionary processes than just random mutations.| I had the pleasure of debating Dr. Schneider one on one several years back on this very paper. |
Citation, please.| You have no theories in your philosophy. To get to the theory level, one starts at the observation level, does lab testing and forms a hypothesis. A paper is published and other scientists do testing. Once the testing is peer-reviewed and agreed on by consensus; only then you have a theory. |
It can only be the arrogance of ignorance which allows a person like you, JerryB, to pontificate like that in spite of reality. In no way is a theory nothing more than a well-tested hypothesis.| No, far from it. And this will never be a theory because how would you ever go in time to do the testing? |
So in your mind, historical events can never leave any evidence to show that they occurred. Yes?| So consensus in science isn't science. |
So you're saying that scientific theories, which you claim (above) depend upon consensus, aren't science. How self-contradictory of you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 03:55:12 [Permalink]
|
Gracious! I didn't know that a greenhouse was a closed environment! Does that mean that I don't have to tend my hydroponic reefer farm any more, and can turn out the lights?
Oh, wait, I don't have a hydroponic reefer farm, alas. 
I am always amused by creationists who refuse to consider Talk Orgins references. The reason is simply that they cannot refute any of it, and know it, and therefore try to disparage it -- "shoot the messenger," as it were. The staff of the site are in the sciences, and none of them are engineers posing as biologists. Everything there has been meticulously researched.
Wanna drive Jonathon Sarfati of CMI stark, raving mad, and who doesn't? Just mention TO to him. 
ID fails right from the git-go. The "designer" cannot be produced nor identified, nor even postulated with any degree of confidence and until that can be done, we are asked to buy a philosophical pig in a poke. Come to think of it, that pretty much covers all religions. And I remind: the ID concept was originally thought up by Christian creationists in order to influence science with the supernatural and to sneak creationist nonsense into the public school science classes. It ain't workin', I am happy to note.
Well, back to just riding along on the thread. Thanks for the trip; thus far, it's been a gas! 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 10:08:04 [Permalink]
|
I'll catch up on my posts later, but I need to clear some science up before we go on.
Apparently, you guys learned what little thermodynamics you know off talk origin or something. You certainly don't understand what thermodynamic systems are.
You are confusing closed systems with isolated ones. A good example of a closed system is a greenhouse because it can exchange energy with its surroundings but not matter:
Open systems Open systems can exchange both matter and energy with an outside system. They are portions of larger systems and in intimate contact with the larger system. Your body is an open system.
Closed systems Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.
Isolated systems Isolated systems can exchange neither energy nor matter with an outside system. While they may be portions of larger systems, they do not communicate with the outside in any way. The physical universe is an isolated system; a closed thermos bottle is essentially an isolated system (though its insulation is not perfect).
|
http://bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
They teach this in first year chem.  |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 10:29:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I'll catch up on my posts later, but I need to clear some science up before we go on.
Apparently, you guys learned what little thermodynamics you know off talk origin or something. You certainly don't understand what thermodynamic systems are.
You are confusing closed systems with isolated ones. A good example of a closed system is a greenhouse because it can exchange energy with its surroundings but not matter:
Open systems Open systems can exchange both matter and energy with an outside system. They are portions of larger systems and in intimate contact with the larger system. Your body is an open system.
Closed systems Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.
Isolated systems Isolated systems can exchange neither energy nor matter with an outside system. While they may be portions of larger systems, they do not communicate with the outside in any way. The physical universe is an isolated system; a closed thermos bottle is essentially an isolated system (though its insulation is not perfect).
|
http://bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
They teach this in first year chem.
|
You still get matter transfer with greenhouses. They're not hermetically sealed. For example, it was recently suggested that greenhouse bees may have been spreading disease to wild bees leading to a decline in the population of the latter. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 10:41:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JerryB
I'll catch up on my posts later, but I need to clear some science up before we go on.
Apparently, you guys learned what little thermodynamics you know off talk origin or something. You certainly don't understand what thermodynamic systems are.
You are confusing closed systems with isolated ones. A good example of a closed system is a greenhouse because it can exchange energy with its surroundings but not matter:
Open systems Open systems can exchange both matter and energy with an outside system. They are portions of larger systems and in intimate contact with the larger system. Your body is an open system.
Closed systems Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.
Isolated systems Isolated systems can exchange neither energy nor matter with an outside system. While they may be portions of larger systems, they do not communicate with the outside in any way. The physical universe is an isolated system; a closed thermos bottle is essentially an isolated system (though its insulation is not perfect).
|
http://bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
They teach this in first year chem.
|
You still get matter transfer with greenhouses. They're not hermetically sealed. For example, it was recently suggested that greenhouse bees may have been spreading disease to wild bees leading to a decline in the population of the latter.
|
Yes, I would agree with you. But theoretically, one could seal it off.
What fascinates me about thermodynamics is that some of the field is largely gedaken experimentation (thought experiment). For example, there is no such thing as an isolated system in reality (maybe the universe is, but we aren't sure about that).
But, that's OK......We construct them in our minds and do the math anyhow..... |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 10:47:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I'll catch up on my posts later, but I need to clear some science up before we go on.
Apparently, you guys learned what little thermodynamics you know off talk origin or something. You certainly don't understand what thermodynamic systems are.
You are confusing closed systems with isolated ones. A good example of a closed system is a greenhouse because it can exchange energy with its surroundings but not matter:
Open systems Open systems can exchange both matter and energy with an outside system. They are portions of larger systems and in intimate contact with the larger system. Your body is an open system.
Closed systems Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.
Isolated systems Isolated systems can exchange neither energy nor matter with an outside system. While they may be portions of larger systems, they do not communicate with the outside in any way. The physical universe is an isolated system; a closed thermos bottle is essentially an isolated system (though its insulation is not perfect).
|
http://bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
They teach this in first year chem.
|
Definitions: correct.
Application: incorrect.
Your average greenhouse has ventilation and irrigation systems, which makes it an open system.
In any case, you still haven't shown that the 2nd Law supports your ID contention. By the way, what did you calculate as the entropy of the human genome in BTU/lbm-degR (or KJ/Kg-degK)? |
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
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 11:53:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The second law of thermodynamics does no such thing. |
Dr. Am I irritating you? <:0)
The second law states that with any spontaneous reaction, matter will tend to go from whatever state it is in, to a more disorganized state.
The word "spontaneous" is the key word. In chemistry, this simply means that no energy is inputted into the reaction. If energy is inputted into the system, then all bets are off.
But random mutations just happen. They are random and spontaneous. So, this means that the genome, which is what I'm referring to in this particular situation, will disorganize....and that is what we see in actuality. Do you disagree with this?
| Does it not bother your that you know next to nothing about science? The theory of evolution is not a philosophy, it's a large set of explanations for the diversity of life on Earth. Such as they are, they do not violate any "basic laws of science[sic]". |
Would you please get off this? You don't know me. People that do, know that I have a degree in environmental chemistry with a minor in biology and post grad studies in thermodynamics.
I'm not tooting my horn, but this forum keeps telling me I know nothing about science.
Someone (I think it was you) stated earlier that I know nothing about elementary biology. Well, that's weird since I used to teach the subject.
Because there's a difference between a working mechanism and an ICS.
The ear is just one example where we can follow the evolution of the ear's bones through the fossil record.
|
There is NOTHING you can show in the fossil record that would substantiate gradualism. Gould openly admitted this and it is the very reason he came up with punk eek.
The record is STRONG and DIRECT evidence for ID. We see no gradualism at all. What we do see is long periods of stasis interspersed with relatively (remember the word relatively) sudden periods (Cambrian Explosion??) of new life forms fully formed and ready to go in their environment.
| That's because you're delusoinal. The Designer is unnessessary since nature can do this on its own. Occam's razor cuts your designer down. |
Delusional? OK....LOL. Which is simpler, your fairytale of man springing from protist over a couple or so billion years through millions of magic mutations, some very complex, or God dun it? :)
| The more you post here on SFN, the more you shoot yourself in the foot by displaying your complete lack of understanding of biology. |
We'll let the readers decide that.
OK, I agree that DNA can be exchanged through viruses. And yes, that's one method concerning what you are discussing. But I eat cow DNA every day.......Man has been doing it for thousands of years. I wonder why we aren't growing 4 legs?
| Again disingenous. In every case you bring up, where we have positive evidence of a designer (and the ability to trace it, like chain saws and bicycles) the designer is human. The conclusion must then be that if the flagellum was designed, it must have been a human who did it. It's the only designer known to man. |
No it isn't. I don't think DNA was programmed by a human. Do you? I also don't think that Windows XP could fall out of a rock. Do you?
I identify what I believe the be the designer in the paper I linked to in my first post.
The chainsaw is a mechanism designed by a human. I can have a beaver cut down your tree without your broken chainsaw. Hell, if I put my mind and energy into it, I can probably cut down that tree with the chainsaw even if you remove the sparkplug first. I'd just jam the chain stuck and use it like an ordinary saw. It's take 100 times longer, but it would still get the job done. Eventually.
Your piss-poor analogies don't do anything to prove your point, other than show how little you know and understand about biology. |
FFFFFffffTTTTtttt.......That's the sound of my point going over your head. And who/what designed the chainsaw is irrelevant.
The point is that if you remove even one part, the machine will no longer function as a chain saw. That, my friend, is an ICS whether you like it or not, I'm afraid.
Fine, just concentrate on your argument then.
| Of course you do. If the Omega Point that Tipler dreamed up is real, then neither you nor I would know if this is the real life, or if this is the simulation of our lives. If this is only the simulation, then whoever activated it metaphorically waved his/her/its magic want and poofed us into existance. In fact, we wouldn't even be able to tell if the simulation ran from Big Bang, or started yesterday from a pre-set state. As such, we've moved from science into fantacy-land. Tipler should have been a science fiction writer like Asimov. His inability to tell fantacy from reality makes it hard for me to take him seriously. And that was even before I knew that people like George Ellis and Michael Shermer shot down Tipler's thesis. |
You are going to tell another person what they do, or do not believe?
LOL.....Well that is different.
Tipler didn't dream up anything. He showed MATHEMATICALLY that the observer in the physics experiments (double slit) is a pocket of intelligent QM.
And no one has ever shown his math to be wrong. I suspect you're just making that up.
| What do you have against Talk Origins? It's a collection of information regarding questions about our origins. They reference real scientific work. |
Horsehocky.....I've debunked about everything on their site at one time or another. It's all Darwinistic pseudoscience over there.
More cluelessness about basic biology. Now I'm sure that your claims about biology classes in collage is just bullshit.
There's a world of differences between bacteria and multicellular organisms that reproduce sexually. |
Yawn.......and I am the one insulting you? LOL, why don't you just post to someone else...I seem to be irritating you.....
That all in your post relevant to the discussion. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 12:17:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
The second law states that with any spontaneous reaction, matter will tend to go from whatever state it is in, to a more disorganized state. |
No, it doesn't. SLOT is a mathematical statement that describes heat transfer, not the organization of matter.| The word "spontaneous" is the key word. In chemistry, this simply means that no energy is inputted into the reaction. If energy is inputted into the system, then all bets are off. |
So mutations caused by, say, ionizing radiation shouldn't need to follow SLOT, then, and so by your (bad) definitions can result in a "more organized" genome. Thanks for pointing out the failure in your own argument.| But random mutations just happen. They are random and spontaneous. So, this means that the genome, which is what I'm referring to in this particular situation, will disorganize....and that is what we see in actuality. Do you disagree with this? |
Since you haven't defined "disorganize" with respect to a DNA molecule, there's no way to agree or disagree with it.
Take two example genomes of three billion base pairs which differ by, say, one percent. Which one is more organized, and how does that difference in organization relate to evolutionary survivability?| Someone (I think it was you) stated earlier that I know nothing about elementary biology. Well, that's weird since I used to teach the subject. |
I feel pity for your students.| There is NOTHING you can show in the fossil record that would substantiate gradualism. Gould openly admitted this and it is the very reason he came up with punk eek. |
Way to miss Gould's point.| The record is STRONG and DIRECT evidence for ID. We see no gradualism at all. What we do see is long periods of stasis interspersed with relatively (remember the word relatively) sudden periods (Cambrian Explosion??) of new life forms fully formed and ready to go in their environment. |
You really think that relates to Gould's punctuated equillibria? Really?| Delusional? OK....LOL. Which is simpler, your fairytale of man springing from protist over a couple or so billion years through millions of magic mutations, some very complex, or God dun it? :) |
How simple is God? Of course, "goddidit" doesn't actually explain anything.| OK, I agree that DNA can be exchanged through viruses. And yes, that's one method concerning what you are discussing. But I eat cow DNA every day.......Man has been doing it for thousands of years. I wonder why we aren't growing 4 legs? |
This comes from a person who claims to have taught biology? I'd expect a better argument from a bag of hammers.| Tipler didn't dream up anything. He showed MATHEMATICALLY that the observer in the physics experiments (double slit) is a pocket of intelligent QM. |
Except that he used the wrong definition of "observer."| And no one has ever shown his math to be wrong. |
His premise was wrong, so his math was irrelevant.| Horsehocky.....I've debunked about everything on their site at one time or another. |
Big claims you've got there. Where's the evidence? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 12:24:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
After I provided some information, you answer that you agree that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex?
So you're left saying (I think) that while the flagellum isn't an ICS, if you take away enough parts to make it an ICS, then it will be an ICS. Which sounds good enough on paper (or on some internet forum), but you'd need to do some work. |
Yes, if I understood Miller, he was stating that it is not an ICS in it's present form. About 30 proteins, if I recall, comprise the ICS.
| Huh? This is insane! You're essentially saying Well, yeah, there are structures like the flagellum that are less complex, but I bet some of them are ICS so ICS is true. It's like you're starting with the assumption: there are ICS, and so ICS must be true! |
No. And I've shown you several examples. Can you remove even one part of those examples and the system still function? Nope, then we have an ICS by it's very definition. I have no idea where you got the above.
However complex Dembski's analysis, the scientific problem with his calculations is almost too easy to spot. By treating the flagellum as a "discrete combinatorial object" he has shown only that it is unlikely that the parts flagellum could assemble spontaneously. Unfortunately for his argument, no scientist has ever proposed that the flagellum or any other complex object evolved that way. Dembski, therefore, has constructed a classic 'straw man' and blown it away with an irrelevant calculation.
By treating the flagellum as a discrete combinatorial object he has assumed in his calculation that no subset of the 30 or so proteins of the flagellum could have biological activity. As we have already seen, this is wrong. Nearly a third of those proteins are closely related to components of the TTSS, which does indeed have biological activity. A calculation that ignores that fact has no scientific validity.
More importantly, Dembski's willingness to ignore the TTSS lays bare the underlying assumption of his entire approach towards the calculation of probabilities and the detection of 'design.' He assumes what he is trying to prove. |
He doesn't assume anything. He simply shows us an ICS and explains how selection would never select for the flagellum due to the glaring reason that it would not even be functioning until it all the necessary parts are in place. This structure had to have been designed in one fell swoop. Makes sense to me, does it you?
| And who are you, again? Is that debate (or a transcript) available? |
I'm a nobody. I am talking Internet, of course. I just happened to run across someone with Schneider in their user name. I asked if that was him and there we went. This has been years ago. I googled that forum and can't find it.
Ironically, there are (were??) programmers not even IDists who were dissing that program.
Hardly. As Miller notes, this was a "a desperation punch that just might win the fight in the final round." Yet, years later it has no grounding. The ideas upon which it was founded have been shown to be flawed and adherents follow it because they want to, and not because there is any compelling reason to do so.
|
Desperation punch that might just win WHAT final round? I certainly am not trying to win anything other than to spread the news of truth.
Darwinism has some major problems that are just glossed over in academia. Anything wrong with a little honesty in science? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 12:26:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I don't know anything about creationism because I am not one. And evolution DOES occur in a closed system. |
But how couldn't you be? The Intelligent Design-movement was founded for the very purpose to dress up Creationism (more specifically Christian Creationism) so it could be passed as a legitimate science in schools. Cripes man, you really need to study the background and motivations behind the "scientists" who are tooting ID. William Dembski is in bed with Southern Baptists, and the Discovery Institute elected to keep him from the Dover trial because DI knew they couldn't fool the court.
You really should read Judge Jones' verdict from the Dover trial if you don't want to go through the entire transcript.
Or if you don't even want to read those, then at least accept that the paper trail from Creationism to Intelligent Design is so blatant that only truly delusional people could deny the connection.
| A greenhouse is a closed system. |
Seriously? What on Earth posessed you to say that? It's so wrong it's not even funny.
| You don't think evolution could occur in one if given enough time? |
Of course we think it could. What made you think otherwise? You have some pretty strange ideas on how and what "Darwinists" think.
| Nah, don't send me to any sites. Please put your argument in your own words and use them as references?? |
Ok. I told you different types of bacteria exchange DNA with each other, even across genera. I provided you two links to peer-reviewd articles. Do you conscede that lateral gene transfers occur and can expand a bacteria's genome to include new and novel functions?
Speaking of which... What's your stance of random mutations, do you think they can add new functions to a bactera, say, completely alter their metabolic pathways?
| Again, I'm not a creationist and don't read their sites. I wouldn't know where to send you if you wanted me to. |
Since it has already been established beyond reasonable doubt that Intelligent Design is Creationism in (poor) disguise, any ID-pages you've visited are to be considered creationist by default, I think you could.
| But I have rode that horse as well. Any physicist I could send you to you would be immediately branded a creationist. |
Not as long as they stick to doing science, instead of theology.
please remember I am an evolutionist |
Not a good one, considering how many straw men you've surrounded yourself with in this thread.
| Fine. You seem to be coming around that there ARE such things as ICSs. |
We don't seem to be on the same page regarding the definition of what a ICS really is. You don't seem to understand that there's a difference between what currently function as a mechanism which is irreducibly complex, and how such a system could have come together, evolved/designed.
Can you please post a link to a page which contains your definition of irreducible complex systems. So we have the same definitions when we start talking ICS.
If we agree that an ICS cannot function without all of it's parts in existence so that the system IS functioning; how then would--and how then could, natural selection select for those parts? |
They way you put it, it probably couldn't. But then, you haven't shown us an ICS so it's a bit hard to say. Once we have a good example, we could study it and maybe figure it out.
You're still not acknowledging the fact that bacteria can import half-ready structures from other species of bacteria (by lateral gene transfer) to incorporate them into new mechanisms. Like the bicycle chain to the chainsaw, to use a half-assed analogy.
| It isn't functioning to begin with! Nothing not working would be selected here. Are you with me on this? |
I would have, if I had agreed with your premise. But since we know your premise is faulty, your conclusion is unsupported.
| You don't point out what the fallacy is. I don't see one in that. And I address selection directly in this very post above. |
Your fallacy of incredulity is that you won't accept that the different parts of the flagella could evolve in parallell before being re-assembled into the current "irreducibly complex" configuration.
| Yes, I have had logic and understand logical fallacies. That is exactly what you were doing when you asked me to quote other physicists on the second law; the argument from authority. I wouldn't go there would I? |
An appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority you appeal to really is an authority.
Referring to a physicist about the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a correct appeal to authority, because the SLOT is a physics law. Referring to an ornithologist about lateral gene transfer would be a fallacy, because even though he probably knows there are Campylobacter and E.Coli, he wouldn't be able to say which is which if he saw it in a microscope.
Take the poster boy of ID, William Dembski for example, he has degrees in psychology, statistics, mathematics, philosophy, and theology. If he would calculate the statistical effects of philosophical religions, then maybe he could be considered an authority. I suppose it would depend the subjects of his thesis'.
But since he hasn't done any research in molecular biology, talking about mutaions and genes is just hot air.
You've already discarded Michael Behe as an authority in a previous post.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 13:01:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
No. And I've shown you several examples. Can you remove even one part of those examples and the system still function? Nope, then we have an ICS by it's very definition. I have no idea where you got the above. |
So here is where we are at. Dembski said the flagellum was an ICS. Researchers quickly show that it isn't. So now you come aboard and say that this other thing is an ICS. And so what happens when that can be shown to be false? You pick the smaller subset of that, and on we go.
Miller wrote:| More importantly, Dembski's willingness to ignore the TTSS lays bare the underlying assumption of his entire approach towards the calculation of probabilities and the detection of 'design.' He assumes what he is trying to prove. |
(My emphasis) |
He doesn't assume anything. He simply shows us an ICS and explains how selection would never select for the flagellum due to the glaring reason that it would not even be functioning until it all the necessary parts are in place. This structure had to have been designed in one fell swoop. Makes sense to me, does it you? |
Except Dembski didn't show an ICS. The article shows how it's not. And in fact, you agreed that it wasn't. All you've done is latch onto something else and claimed that that is now an ICS!
| And who are you, again? Is that debate (or a transcript) available? |
I'm a nobody. I am talking Internet, of course. I just happened to run across someone with Schneider in their user name. I asked if that was him and there we went. This has been years ago. I googled that forum and can't find it. |
Ah, ok.
| Darwinism has some major problems that are just glossed over in academia. Anything wrong with a little honesty in science? |
What examples are there of these "major problems"? |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 13:17:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
This is not a system of dissimilar parts wherein if one removes a single part the system will stop functioning. |
If you remove the left sequence, then the transposase can no longer transpose the transposon.
If you remove the right sequence, then the transposase can no longer transpose the transposon.
If you remove the transposase, then there is nothing to do the transposition.
If you remove an antibiotic gene, then you remove the transposon's function of providing resistance to that antibiotic.
I.e. there are lots of parts that are all required for proper functioning of the IC system. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 13:25:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I have calculated the entropy of the human genome and it increases every generation. Wanna see the math? |
Would we ever!!! |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
