|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,809 Year: 4,066/9,624 Month: 937/974 Week: 264/286 Day: 25/46 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Irreducible complexity- the challenges have been rebutted (if not refuted) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7040 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Gemster:
You haven't responded to any of the three conditions I put forward to get a response. I'll simply repeat them. Before you can get further discussion on this issue, you must have: A) read the relevant chapter of a physics bookB) addressed the issue of gaseous DNA being more "disordered" than table salt, and C) addressed the issue of how water can freeze (become more ordered) if things supposedly cannot become more ordered at all in an open system. If you are not speaking about entropy as scientists use it, and instead your alternative concept of "information entropy", you need to realize that this is not thermodynamics, and is not used in, or evidenced by, any mainstream science. There are two types of "information theory" which are used in science, which you may be confusing this with. One is more related to quantum mechanics, and has no concept of entropy at all. The other is related to communications, and has its own "entropy", but this is related to pattern matching. Again, I repeat: neither have anything to do with thermodynamics, as scientists use it. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." [This message has been edited by Rei, 09-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6038 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
quote: Other than conflating cosmology and biology, which I'll overlook, there's a more interesting error here, Gemster. Actually 2 errors:1. In much of your post, you're plagiarizing from TrueOrigins. Bad form. Rather than copy blocks of text from a site without credit, it's good to link to the site to give credit to the original author. 2. I'll ask a question, rather than telling you the error:Which case has greater entropy? a.Our current universe.b. Take our current universe and compact all of its matter and energy into a tiny, tiny space. If you have a clue as to what entropy is, the answer's obvious. Here's a similar case to help your intuition along: a. The earth's current atmosphere.b. The earth's current atmosphere compressed into a small tank. I wonder what your acquaintance with Thermodynamics is...a chemistry course? A physics course? Self guided study with a physics textbook? Or, perhaps, is it just limited to copying text from creationist websites? [This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 09-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Xzen Inactive Member |
The Darwinian theory of Natural Selection has been accepted for many years now. Some scientists even prematurely accepted this theory as fact. However in 1993 a group of scientists from Berkley, Cambridge, Munich, and The University of Chicago have shown otherwise. The principal of Irreducible Complexity has been established that completely debunks Darwin’s theory of evolution labeling it as not being an adequate explanation for some of today’s findings.
The Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection states that nature is selective scrutinizing the slightest variations, rejecting those that are bad, preserving those that are good. He also states that if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, his theory would absolutely break down. Another theory called Biological Predestination attempted to give a continuous argument dealing with the origins of life without intelligent design which brings together a theory that proteins were chemically attracted to each other and formed a chain that then managed to fold itself into a molecular machine outside of a cell. Dr. Dean Kenyon, Author of Biochemical Predestination, when challenged to explain how proteins could be assembled without DNA instruction was unable to prove that they could and began to doubt his own theory. Darwin did his best with what he had at the time to explain what he had seen just as early man had tried to explain lightning and thunder as a supernatural event. However I am not saying that the supernatural does not exist. The principal of Irreducible Complexity has been proven best by the Bacterial Flagellum. This bacterium has the design of a motor, appropriately called a Flageller motor, which is much like ones found on a boat. A drive shaft, engine, and a quarter turn hook for a propeller are all present. Scientists don’t use these terms out of convenience but because that is what they are. If any one of these was not present at the same time the others came about, the propeller would not function and would do nothing to help in the survival of the bacterium and thus according to Darwinian Theory would not have been carried on to the offspring of the organism. However another Idea had been spurned from Irreducible complexity. This theory is called co-option. Co-option states that possibly a cell can borrow existing parts from other cells to build a new mechanism. Molecular Biologist Scott Minnich from the University of Idaho would argue the contrary. Dr. Minnich states that in the case of the Bacterial Flagellum there are at least thirty parts that could not have come from other molecular machines and only ten that could have been borrowed. Dr. Minnich goes on to say plainly that the flageller motor could not have been a product of Darwinian Theories. So then how is it that this propeller exists? Maybe it was the product of some intelligent designer as the evidence suggests, say today’s Scientists. Furthermore The thought that proteins formed and joined together in a functional way in some primordial pool is way out there! Scientists have found that the only way proteins are formed into a functional way is in the cells of an already existing organism. Something called DNA goes through a process which is called transcription which copies the DNA into a separate strand. This separate strand is called messenger RNA. The RNA is then moved from the nucleus of the cell to the ribosome which manufactures a chain of amino acids. This chain of amino acids is then taken to a barrel shaped machine which folds the chain into a functioning molecular machine. After the amino acids are arranged this newly built molecular machine is then moved to the part of the cell where they are to do their job. And so the theory of Natural Selection and Biochemical predestination falls apart just as Darwin himself said and as Dean H. Kenyon knows. Leading Scientists to use a more observational method in examining evidence. They can no longer rule out Intelligent design as a possibility but must except what the evidence clearly shows.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Xzen,
Please demonstrate, without recourse to arguments from incredulity, that IC cannot evolve. When you've done this, you have ruled out Evolution, until then..... Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
You advocate the idea of intelligent design.
Design theoryalso called design or the design argumentis the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. Now we come to the crux of the issue.Please explain,unike every other ID'er, the mechanism this supposed intelligence operates through.You state that you do not rule out supernatural means. Fine,what are supernatural means and how do you suppose it is able to work on natural phenomena?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
The Darwinian theory of Natural Selection has been accepted for many years now. Some scientists even prematurely accepted this theory as fact. However in 1993 a group of scientists from Berkley, Cambridge, Munich, and The University of Chicago have shown otherwise. The principal of Irreducible Complexity has been established that completely debunks Darwin’s theory of evolution labeling it as not being an adequate explanation for some of today’s findings. Evolution is a fact, which has been observed. Simply, evolution is change and speciation due to change has been observed. The theory of evolution is not fact, but rather the theory that species in the past arose via random mutation and natural selection as is seen today. Intel Design and IC have so far fallen short of refuting the Theory of Evolution (ToE). The mechanisms for ToE can be and have been observed. The mechanisms are: 1. Heritability: genetic traits must be passed on to subsequent generations. 2. Mutation: Imperfections in copying the DNA code or alteration by a genetic event such as horizontal gene transfer. 3. Natural selection: Ecological pressures that cause a differentiation in allele frequency. All three of these have been observed, the only question is did it happen in the past?
The Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection states that nature is selective scrutinizing the slightest variations, rejecting those that are bad, preserving those that are good. He also states that if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, his theory would absolutely break down. Another theory called Biological Predestination attempted to give a continuous argument dealing with the origins of life without intelligent design which brings together a theory that proteins were chemically attracted to each other and formed a chain that then managed to fold itself into a molecular machine outside of a cell. Dr. Dean Kenyon, Author of Biochemical Predestination, when challenged to explain how proteins could be assembled without DNA instruction was unable to prove that they could and began to doubt his own theory. Firstly, the theory of abiogenesis, which you seem to be alluding to, has no bearing on evolution. Evolution starts with the first replicator. The first replicator could have been formed by design, but no supernatural force has yet been observed that designs things in the physical world. Also, catalytic RNA may have played some role in the first replicator, proteins may not have played a part till later in evolution. If you are arguing a protein first theory of abiogenesis, you would have to rule out RNA and DNA as having a role in the first replicator. DNA/Protein and RNA/protein complexes are very common today and they MAY have been dependent on each other in the firs replicator, who knows. Secondly, no IDist has ever shown that a protein mechanism could NOT be formed by evolution, or slight modification over time. The IC of the eye is a good example where evolutionary mechanisms can explain co-depedence and complexity. There are several threads that cover this on this site.
Darwin did his best with what he had at the time to explain what he had seen just as early man had tried to explain lightning and thunder as a supernatural event. However I am not saying that the supernatural does not exist. The principal of Irreducible Complexity has been proven best by the Bacterial Flagellum. This bacterium has the design of a motor, appropriately called a Flageller motor, which is much like ones found on a boat. A drive shaft, engine, and a quarter turn hook for a propeller are all present. Scientists don’t use these terms out of convenience but because that is what they are. If any one of these was not present at the same time the others came about, the propeller would not function and would do nothing to help in the survival of the bacterium and thus according to Darwinian Theory would not have been carried on to the offspring of the organism. ID still has not ruled out less complex and rudimentary flagellar motors that may have existed in the distant past. You are right, all proteins in their current configuration must be there in order to function AS WE KNOW IT TODAY, but you must first show that proteins can not change function over time. An analogy would be American societial dependence on electricity. Without electricity large american cities would turn into chaos, yet we know that large cities existed in the past without electricity. Electricity did away with dependence on horses, wood for heat, and gas for lights. Things changed in a way that masked prior function and organization.
However another Idea had been spurned from Irreducible complexity. This theory is called co-option. Co-option states that possibly a cell can borrow existing parts from other cells to build a new mechanism. Molecular Biologist Scott Minnich from the University of Idaho would argue the contrary. Dr. Minnich states that in the case of the Bacterial Flagellum there are at least thirty parts that could not have come from other molecular machines and only ten that could have been borrowed. Dr. Minnich goes on to say plainly that the flageller motor could not have been a product of Darwinian Theories. So then how is it that this propeller exists? Maybe it was the product of some intelligent designer as the evidence suggests, say today’s Scientists. Again, I would ask Dr. Minnich how he has proven that these molecular machines could not have arisen through other mechanisms, namely evolution through mutation and natural selection. It usually comes down to a tautology: IC is proven by IC. No physical mechanisms, other than mutation and natural selection, has ever been observed that would indicate design.
Furthermore The thought that proteins formed and joined together in a functional way in some primordial pool is way out there! Scientists have found that the only way proteins are formed into a functional way is in the cells of an already existing organism. Something called DNA goes through a process which is called transcription which copies the DNA into a separate strand. This separate strand is called messenger RNA. The RNA is then moved from the nucleus of the cell to the ribosome which manufactures a chain of amino acids. This chain of amino acids is then taken to a barrel shaped machine which folds the chain into a functioning molecular machine. After the amino acids are arranged this newly built molecular machine is then moved to the part of the cell where they are to do their job. Actually, I have personally made proteins outside of cells. Well not exactly, I used E. coli lysate devoid of DNA to produce protein from an introduced plasmid. It's known as in vitro protein expression . The system I used was from Roche, read more here. It still uses systems derived from DNA, but is done in the absence of cells, or in a "primordial soup" situation.
And so the theory of Natural Selection and Biochemical predestination falls apart just as Darwin himself said and as Dean H. Kenyon knows. Leading Scientists to use a more observational method in examining evidence. They can no longer rule out Intelligent design as a possibility but must except what the evidence clearly shows. As soon as we see IC systems appear in an organism today with no history of such an IC system, we may start to look at ID. That is, a completely new flagellar system appears in a lab strain of E. coli that has never been seen before. However, this has not happened. Secondly, you still have not stated how a supernatural being has manipulated DNA, or if it were a physical designer, who designed the first designer. The evidence still clearly shows effects of evolution, and not ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Xzen Inactive Member |
You claim that evolution Is an observed fact. Give one unambiguous observed example of acctual trans-species evolution. Note interspecies adaptation does not qulify.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3244 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
Hi Xzen, On top of thr comments of the others I have an additional question. Based on the appearance of the post it appears to be a cut and paste job. Could you please provide a link or a reference as it is considered bad form on this forum not to credit someone elses work. If I am in error here then I apologize. I am interested because I am familiar with the writings of some of the most promonant of the ID proponents and do nto recognize Scott Minnich's.
------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur and my family motto Transfixus sed non mortis Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Xzen Inactive Member |
No it was not a cut and paste job. Everything I have writen was taken from personal reserch notes none of which came from a website.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Xzen writes: You claim that evolution Is an observed fact. Give one unambiguous observed example of acctual trans-species evolution. Note interspecies adaptation does not qulify. There are examples of this given elsewhere on this site. Since you have spent so much time researching ID, why not spend some time researching evolution before making false claims. I just gave a recent example of evolution in process, which also shows how a mutation may not only be beneficial, but allow it to take over new ecosystems. I invite you to join the discussion in the following thread:http://EvC Forum: a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists -->EvC Forum: a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists Since you believe in ID I would love to have you explain, 1) How ID explains the emergence of taxiflora and what it can add to continuing research on this plant. 2) What model ID espouses for ongoing changes in organisms (besides the one above). If it acknowledges changes due to mutation and selection on the "micro" level (as witnessed in breeding), what is the reason to doubt "macro" level evolution (especially as this has been seen in plants). 3) What model ID uses to explain/understand the fossil record? 4) If you go to the thread above, what you think of Warren's assertion that ID is not supposed to replace evolution. Anyhow, your first post contains an inaccurate statement I have heard elsewhere. While Darwin may very well have said that if it could be proven that an entity was unable to have been generated through slow, natural processes, his theory would fall apart. HOWEVER, an entity's not being proven that it was generated (or how it could have been generated) through gradual, natural processes is not the same thing. IDers have not proven that any entity could not have been created through evolution, rather having simply raised doubts about some known routes. And I would add not having addressed all known routes (for matter of convenience). Further, disproving Darwin is not the same as proving one's own theory. Other posters have already brought up points along this line. Where is this supernatural you are talking about? Without resorting to living beings, name one single undisputed supernaturally designed object. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Give one unambiguous observed example of acctual trans-species evolution. Note interspecies adaptation does not qulify. Here's a bunch:
Observed Instances of Speciation In particular pay attention to the microbe that doesn't just type as a new species, but in a whole other family and genus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Xzen,
You claim that evolution Is an observed fact. Give one unambiguous observed example of acctual trans-species evolution. Note interspecies adaptation does not qulify. How about you support your primary assertion, rather than try to move the goalposts from ID. I repeat, with amendments: "Please demonstrate "one unambiguous observed example" that ID couldn't have evolved (what's good for the goose, right?), without recourse to arguments from incredulity. When you've done this, you have ruled out Evolution, until then....." I want FACTS, not a scientists opinion. Perhaps if you could provide Dr Minnich's data from which he asserted the flagellum couldn't have co-opted other structures, & at the same time tell me how he can be so sure that the alleged co-opted components haven't simply vanished in their original form, leaving nothing from which to infer? Mark [This message has been edited by mark24, 10-20-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
You know, Michael Behe has no problem with evolution on the organismal scale. Read his 'Black Box' (I'm sure you have) and see how he has no problem with common descent or 'monkey-to-man evolution'.
Makes me wonder though if other non-YEC creationists have the same approach. What does Dembski, Minnich, and others say about common descent and evolution as such?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3244 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote:OK, first off. Are you sure that you are not referring to the Mere Creation conference in 1996 hosted by the Christian Leadership Ministries? I think that this was the first decent sized meeting. I also believe it is where Dr. Behe first presented his quote:And unfortunately while Irreducible Complexity is complex, it is not irreducible. A very good paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology pretty much trashes Dr. Behe’s thesis on theoretical grounds and numerous papers since the publication of his book in 1996 have provided additional data against him. Here is some of the data which points to some possible pathways directly contrary to IC. There is more info on this site where I have posted numerous papers concerning another one of Dr. Behe’s IC systems, and demonstrated some of his most obvious errors. As one example, he (Behe) claims that if the blood clotting system arose through NS then there would have been a likely step where total volumetric blood clotting would have been present. Now, while he did this as an attempt the raise a barrier to clotting as an NS system, there exists a clotting system which does just what he claims would be bad. In the Horse shoe crab (not really a crab but a remnant of a VERY old family) there exists a clotting system for defense against bacteria which is remarkably similar, although less complex, to our clotting system. It is used to protect against bacterial infection and from holes in the exoskeleton, which it does quite well. However, when gram negative bacteria are INJECTED into the Horseshoe crab the clotting system can and does completely clot (actually it gels). Now while this is bad in the lab, it does not happen in the ocean a lot as there are few mermen with hypodermics present. So much for the missing intermediary with the supposed IC system quote:Not quite, the variations have to have an effect either on the survivability of the organism or on the reproductive capacity. quote:You are in error, ID has not been proven at all, in fact even after numerous years and financial support it has NO supporting data at all. For more please see my comments above. This is all I currently have time for, I will deal with more if this IC/ID dren later. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur and my family motto Transfixus sed non mortis Taz PS Links are fixed, sorry about that. I hope to look into the thermoregulatory aspects of the ID claims later as I have time. [This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 10-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
from talkorigins speciation faq:
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus) At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes. The faq also talks about the difficulty in defining species. If you would like other examples outside of the quote or the talkorigins website let me know. You might also look through the rest of the site since you may be directed there many times during this debate. The evos on EvC like to reference this talkorigiins because it condenses material that is spread across the internet and the author usually writes in a non-technical style which is more accessible for non-scientists. You may also want to check out the talkdesign website which is a branch of the talkorigins website.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024