|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2007 : 02:56:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
Behe is an old-earther. The similarity is due to similar design. Just like similar car companies make similar cars.
Have you totally forgotten what this was about? It concerned whether or not ID rejects evolution. And when I say ID, I mean the "theory" of intelligent design, not the IDists that might endorse it. Try to follow me here:
Some IDists reject evolution.
Some IDists do not reject evolution.
ID rejects nothing save for the idea that there has never been any intelligent intervention.
Some IDists say that the similarities are due to common design.
Some IDists say that the similarities are due to common descent.
Some IDists say that the similarities are due to both common design and common descent.
ID says nothing about the similarities, save maybe for the probabilities that account for them.
So, you are wrong.
quote:
It is illogical to expect the same gene to have different functions.
1. They are rarely the same. They are similar.
2. Even genes with identical DNA sequences can have different functions depending on the context in which they are expressed.
So, your assertion that there is something illogical going on is... I wouldn't say illogical. Just wrong.
(Sorry for barging in here, marf, but this tied in with my original post) |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 03:06:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
Behe is an old-earther. The similarity is due to similar design. Just like similar car companies make similar cars.
Have you totally forgotten what this was about? It concerned whether or not ID rejects evolution. And when I say ID, I mean the "theory" of intelligent design, not the IDists that might endorse it. Try to follow me here:
Some IDists reject evolution.
Some IDists do not reject evolution.
ID rejects nothing save for the idea that there has never been any
intelligent intervention.
Intelligent Design rejects intelligent intervention...
quote:
Some IDists say that the similarities are due to common design.
Some IDists say that the similarities are due to common descent.
Some IDists say that the similarities are due to both common design and common descent.
ID says nothing about the similarities, save maybe for the probabilities that account for them.
So, you are wrong.
quote:
It is illogical to expect the same gene to have different functions.
1. They are rarely the same. They are similar.
2. Even genes with identical DNA sequences can have different functions depending on the context in which they are expressed.
So, your assertion that there is something illogical going on is... I wouldn't say illogical. Just wrong.
(Sorry for barging in here, marf, but this tied in with my original post)
I must have been wrong to enter this forum in such a debate. If a gene is switched off it won't be expressed. But when the same or similar genes are present they will execute the same/similar functions. Perhaps I should have explained these simple concepts more clearly. This is my outline for why I believe in common design as a legitimate counter-argument to common descent. A head is a head, and a foot is a foot. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
| Edited by - smoke on 03/04/2007 03:08:13 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 03:10:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
Let me get this straight. You say that irreducibly complex systems can evolve...The very definition of irreducible means this can't happen.
No thats not the definition. Thatīs Behe's claim, which was refuted even long before Behe ever thought that he was the first to think about the concept.
Irreducible complexity means that all parts are necessary to preform the current function and that does not mean that the structure canīt evolve through scaffolding or from a structure with another function.
Got to love it when the kooks bring up Behe.
 |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 03:12:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
Let me get this straight. You say that irreducibly complex systems can evolve...The very definition of irreducible means this can't happen.
No thats not the definition. Thatīs Behe's claim, which was refuted even long before Behe ever thought that he was the first to think about the concept.
Irreducible complexity means that all parts are necessary to preform the current function and that does not mean that the structure canīt evolve through scaffolding or from a structure with another function.
Got to love it when the kooks bring up Behe.
Perhaps you should laugh when you find out how the information can arise in the first place as per the Laws of Information. Should I say, lawl |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2007 : 04:00:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
Perhaps you should laugh when you find out how the information can arise in the first place as per the Laws of Information. Should I say, lawl
Simple example of increased genetic information, an insertion mutation.
Information is a term with many meanings depending on context, so you better define how you are going to use the term, if this is going to lead somewhere.
The creationist claim that mutation can only reduce not increase the amount of information, is pretty silly as everything that a mutation can do, another mutation can undo. In such case, if the first is a reduction of information the second mutation must be an equal increase.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 03/04/2007 04:21:41 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2007 : 04:53:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
It means that it's logically vacuous. This is an example of a vacuous argument.
Well, straw-men are vacuous. So, yes, your argument is vacuous.
Indeed. I don't ever recall seeing so much bound-up, horse bedding on one page, ever. Not even verlch has ever managed it ....
So smoke, I'm sure you'll agree that if it can be shown that if a flagellum can happen through natural process', it can no longer be considered "irreductably complex," yes?
quote:
Abstract: The bacterial flagellum is a complex molecular system with multiple components required for functional motility. Such systems are sometimes proposed as puzzles for evolutionary theory on the assumption that selection would have no function to act on until all components are in place. Previous work (Thornhill and Ussery, 2000, A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. J Theor Biol. 203 (2), 111-116) has outlined the general pathways by which Darwinian mechanisms can produce multi-component systems. However, published attempts to explain flagellar origins suffer from vagueness and are inconsistent with recent discoveries and the constraints imposed by Brownian motion. A new model is proposed based on two major arguments. First, analysis of dispersal at low Reynolds numbers indicates that even very crude motility can be beneficial for large bacteria. Second, homologies between flagellar and nonflagellar proteins suggest ancestral systems with functions other than motility. The model consists of six major stages: export apparatus, secretion system, adhesion system, pilus, undirected motility, and taxis-enabled motility. The selectability of each stage is documented using analogies with present-day systems. Conclusions include: (1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase. (2) Much of the flagellum's complexity evolved after crude motility was in place, via internal gene duplications and subfunctionalization. (3) Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events. (4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components. Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum.
Enjoy the read...
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 05:11:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
Don't the IDiots claim that all species did not descend from a common ancestors - it seems Behe does not agree with this, however did Behe not claim there were no transitional fossils for whales? or am I confusing him with Dumbski
Well, this is part of the ID problem-- they don't actually have any hypotheses. There is no predictive power. To date, ID is almost entirely made up of critiques of evolution.
Which should be a mental note to all of you that evolution is unfit for survival in the light of science. This is what I've been trying to explain when I noted the differences between ID and creationism but I guess there's no use beating a dead horse.
Huh? I don't understand your point. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 05:14:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
ID is a testament to the truth of creationism. One piece of accepted evolutionary evidence that should shock you all back to your monkey ancestors is mitochondrial Eve; not the date assigned to it, but the fact that she existed with respected to the evolutionary scientists.
Wha?! In this post (it's quoted in the one right before this one), you talked about "the differences between ID and creationism." But now ID is "a testament to the truth of creationism." I'm confused. And I don't follow your point about the "accepted evolutionary evidence." |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 03/04/2007 05:27:06 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 05:25:53 [Permalink]
|
| BTW, welcome back smoke. I guess you haven't left after all. However, I notice that in this post, you asked for a discussion about the AiG site. Here I did that, but you haven't replied. Instead, you've chosen to focus on ID. The folks over at AiG aren't all that thrilled with ID, so it's not clear to me why you're bothering to discuss it. Or-- as is more likely the case-- am I missing something? |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 03/04/2007 10:34:33 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 06:41:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yeah, I should really use that for those Catholic priests who make about $5 a month from their religious services along with $800 a month for their religious job.
You need to study some history put forth by scholars, rather than your preacher. The wealth of the Vatican is all but boundless, and there are Catholics in the world in poverty. And then there are their Protestant counterparts; Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Bakker -- oh, wait, he's been caught, Ham, Baugh, Haggard (hahahahaha), and so forth. The all-star cast list is endless.
As for my conversations with Sarfati, who lies as easily as he talks, look at the Theology Web archives going back between 3 & 5 (don't recall the actual dates) years. He was posting under the handle of "Socrates," and he was getting so badly beaten up by Meert, Morton, Higgins, PZ Myers, et al, that he dropped out never to return. I got banned somewhat before that happy day.
Say, speaking of Sarfati, did'ja ever hear the story 'bout how Ham screwed the Ozzies? No honor among thieves, eh?
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 07:49:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
...this could happen given already established laws (Laws of information, 2nd law of Thermodynamics).
What is this "Laws of Information? (I've heard of them before, but a google search gave 15000 hits on "Laws of Information", none of the hits on the first page seemed relevant)
I'd be delighted if you could explain to me how the 2nd law of Thermodynamics would put a stop to evolution.
quote:
Right, and over time my duplicate of a Mario game can change into Batman.
False analogy, since there's a huge difference between a computer game and genes.
quote:
Maybe you should provide mathematical support for the chances of this happening..oh wait that wouldn't help you since the chances of the simplest self-sufficient living thing on this earth to form itself out of nothing is 1 to 10 to the 190,000th power...
Straw-man and a gross misrepresentation of abiogenesis.
quote:
whereas 1 in 10^50 and beyond is mathematically impossible.
Prove it.
quote:
quote:
Behe admits that often genes look extremely similar but refuses to consider that they are duplicates, slightly modified over time.
Do you know what that difference is? Trillions of kilobases.
Such a gross exaggeration is nothing but a lie. 
quote:
Behe is an old-earther. The similarity is due to similar design. Just like similar car companies make similar cars.
All car designs evolved from the original car, which evolved from the old carriage. Some design changes of the car was beneficial to the car, and was natually selected by the car manufacturer to be the latest upgrade. Some design changes didn't work, and was subsequently scrapped.
quote:
The alleged articles that show flagella evolution have been thoroughly refuted. I can cite the links.
Emphasis mine. Why didn't you?
Edited to add, instead of separate postings:
quote:
Originally posted by smoke:
Perhaps, when you get out of your atheist shell,
Insults will not help you with anything other than making people think less of you (and by association, Christians).
quote:
you'll understand that there's a lot more physical claims behind Judeo-Christianity than attempts (and very successful ones by the way read Job 26:8, etc has a lot of science for 900 BC) to explain the world.
Not science, merely evidence that some people of the Old Testament possessed the power of observation. They saw clouds, and figured out they were made of water... So what? They thought clouds were made by the hand of God. That's not science.
|
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/04/2007 08:07:48 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 07:56:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
quote:
Originally posted by the_ignored
BTW...as for smoke's saying that ID has no real link to creationism, he should read the judge's decision or the transcript from the Dover trial itself. Both available at the National Center for Science Education, I believe.
Or, he could just read the Wedge document.
Sure, www.tektonics.org Start there, see where you end up. I'll be laughing when you start asking all your atheist buddies for answers.
How non-sequitur is this in a scale from 1 through 10? |
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 - 03/04/2007 : 08:12:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
Intelligent Design rejects intelligent intervention...
Really? Do creationists promoting ID know about this?
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 10:31:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
Intelligent Design rejects intelligent intervention...
So your version of ID is all about frontloading? Oh, no, you said something about "common design." How is that not creationism?quote:
A head is a head, and a foot is a foot.
Except when a foot is a fin, of course. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 10:45:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
Do you know what that difference is? Trillions of kilobases.
Wow! What organism has a quadrillion bases in the first place? Humans only have about 3 billion (3 million kilobases), so you're talking a genome 6 orders of magnitude larger.quote:
The alleged articles that show flagella evolution have been thoroughly refuted. I can cite the links.
Why didn't you do so?quote:
You have to...how should I say this without shooting down everyone's illusions...Give Examples. You can't put forward a claim without backing it up.
Like your claim that "The alleged articles that show flagella evolution have been thoroughly refuted," for example?quote:
2)Laws of information are discovered in the late 1940's. This has yet to be seen to be resolved, or at least I have to see it resolved.
Prove that there are any laws of information applicable to genomes.quote:
3)Irreducible complexity models are attempted to be shot down by biology "mavericks" such as Kenny Millah, but unfortunately the potholes in his counter-theories are bigger than the ones in his brain.
No back-up presented for that assertion, and since when is Kenneth Miller supposed to have all the answers?quote:
4)2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I have yet to see this one resolved...
I have yet to see a 2LOT argument against evolution which makes any sense whatsoever. Most of them rely on a misunderstanding of thermodynamics, and the rest on the conflation of "order" and "information" which is completely backwards.quote:
5)ID is shot down as religious science...yeah just because there are recognizable flaws in evolution it has to be religious.
ID isn't science, it is nothing more than religion. So no, ID has never been "shot down as religious science." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
You may be a fundamentalist atheist if...
