|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The problems you're having with board administration are related not to your position, but to the Forum Guidelines. I can provide advice and assistance, but I cannot let you continue to ignore both me and the Forum Guidelines.
I would be glad to explain and clarify what I'm looking for either in the [forum=-19] forum or via email to Admin. If you choose not to take advantage of these opportunities, please at least understand that I believe it very important that you settle the issue of what qualifies as science, because in that way we can avoid having multiple threads bog down on the same repetitious point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: And to SUPPORT ID, it would be good for you to give us some kind of mechanism. Perhaps it would be good to describe the designer and show us how the designing happened. And when. And where. Do you have any idea how much credibility this would give your arguments? YOu expect evolutionists to give a blow by blow account of the mechanism of evolution, but never, EVER, take a chance of doing so for ID. In the meantime you simply reject every line of evidence for evolution because you, personally, did not see the act happening and do not understand some of the basic geological concepts involved (i.e.: 'billions of animals died and were buried'.) REAL heavy stuff, JP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Where are the go to's instructions in the DNA code? Take Rrhain's now infamous example of phage resistance in E. coli. If there are preprogrammed, front-loaded resistance "go to" instructions, then all of the clonal organisms should be resistant due to the same mutation. However, we find that only a random few contain the necessary mutations. If the DNA sequence was a pseudo-program, then they should all of the analogous "go to" command that creates the same mutation due to the same stimulus. It's simply not there. Just to get back to the topic, what would falsify the theory of front-loaded (ie go to commands) instructions in DNA?
quote: You forgot catalytic RNA which has the properties of both protein and DNA.
quote: Believe it or not, I agree. However, selective pressures do cause differential spread of alleles. Sometimes the relationship between phenotype and selective pressure is easy to figure out (eg peppered moths) and others times it is less obvious. However, allele frequencies do shift (fact) in different environments.
quote: Not always true. Just among humans there are different types of hemoglobin, many different alleles in MHC class proteins, etc. There are so many examples of different protein configurations just among species as to totally negate your argument. One of the enzymes of interest that I work with can lose 30% of its amino acid sequence without losing any function whatsoever. Proteins are extremely flexible.
quote: Yes they do, and which proteins fit together can change with a change in protein shape. This is an important aspect for creating protein cascades, such as found in blood clotting. If you want I can search for specific references on the protein function/binding changes as a result of mutation. I didn't feel like putting the work in unless you disagreed.
quote: Absolutely false. Beneficial mutations are known.
quote: Well, in microbiology it has been done. From this website:
Luria and Delbruck (1943) Are mutations random or aresponse to an environment? Observation: T1 bacteriophage resistant E. coli Hypothesis #1: resistance is a physiological response to T1 Hypothesis #2: resistance is due to a preexisting, random mutation Experiment: add T1 to twenty E. coli cultures Prediction #1: a small number of bacteria from each culture will become resistant Prediction #2: the number of resistant bacteria will vary from culture to culture Result: large fluctuations between cultures Conclusion: mutations are random In other words, mutations have been known to be random since 1943. Now, show me how they aren't random with respect to benefice, detriment, or neutrality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
edge:
And to SUPPORT ID, it would be good for you to give us some kind of mechanism. John Paul:Design IS the mechanism. edge:Perhaps it would be good to describe the designer and show us how the designing happened. John Paul:It is not necessary to know anything abbout the design to determine or understand the design. It is not even necessary to understand how it was designed to determine and understand the design. edge:Do you have any idea how much credibility this would give your arguments? John Paul:Seeing those things are irrelevant I can't see they would do anything. edge:YOu expect evolutionists to give a blow by blow account of the mechanism of evolution, but never, EVER, take a chance of doing so for ID. John Paul:First you can't even come close to a blow by blow account, not even close. Second, if things are equal then we should have to produce the same level as you do. However we go one better. edge:In the meantime you simply reject every line of evidence for evolution because you, personally, did not see the act happening and do not understand some of the basic geological concepts involved (i.e.: 'billions of animals died and were buried'.) REAL heavy stuff, JP. John Paul:I reject the evidence for the ToE because it isn't compelling. It IS very subjective. Geology is NOT biology. IOW I don't have to know what a rock is in order to understand the workings of a cell. The ToE is a biological theory (I have emailed several paleontologists who disagree with you on you know what).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can't change a protein without affecting something- in a negative way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------: LM: Absolutely false. Beneficial mutations are known. John Paul:Just because a mutation is beneficial it doesn't mean it changed the shape of a protein. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LM: All evolutionists have to do to evidence IC as a result of evolution is to show random, non-teleological, mutations. This has been done. John Paul: When and where? Not in biology that's for sure. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, in microbiology it has been done. From this website: Luria and Delbruck (1943) Are mutations random or aresponse to an environment?Observation: T1 bacteriophage resistant E. coli Hypothesis #1: resistance is a physiological response to T1 Hypothesis #2: resistance is due to a preexisting, random mutation Experiment: add T1 to twenty E. coli cultures Prediction #1: a small number of bacteria from each culture will become resistant Prediction #2: the number of resistant bacteria will vary from culture to culture Result: large fluctuations between cultures Conclusion: mutations are random In other words, mutations have been known to be random since 1943. John Paul:How can they make that determination in 1943 when they didn't even know what DNA looked like in 1943? And what does this have to do with evolving IC, which was wht you tried to answer? LM:If there are preprogrammed, front-loaded resistance "go to" instructions, then all of the clonal organisms should be resistant due to the same mutation. John Paul:Not so. It would be so IF the original programming were unaltered but why would we expect that? There isn't anything that says a design has to remain intact throughout history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Forum Guidelines:
7. Avoid any form of misrepresentation. Geeze I wonder when that will be enforced? 1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics. I answer the posts as they are posted. IOW if I stray off topic it would be because I answered someone who strayed. 2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration. Is further elaboration always necessary? If someone can't or shows no signs of understanding the basics why get more indepth? 3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach." When evos start doing this others may follow. 4. Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it. see response to #3 5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references. OK I can do that. 6. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source. I try very hard to do that. 7 is covered above. 8. Please do not participate as more than one ID. You can change your user ID by going to your Profile Page and creating a new alias. John Paul- no need to change. 9. When introducing a new topic, please keep the post narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points. OK I can do that. 10. Do not cut-n-paste long excerpts into message boxes. Please instead introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line. I don't understand this rational but I can do that. If I am guilty of violating #2 then many evos are guilty of violating #7. Even if I am not guilty they still would be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Hold on here. If I asked "How was the Empire State building made," could I just say "The Empire State Building IS how it was made." What we are all waiting for is the physical forces that caused the design.
quote: This is the very crux of the debate. What was the designer? A blind algorithm (evolution) or an as of yet named intelligent designer. Evolution has the HOW, but ID isn't even interested in this.
quote: We can't give a blow by blow account. That is why ID is an argument from ignorance. They claim that since we can't give a blow by blow, then ID has to be correct. And evolution actually goes one better because it shows the HOW while ID doesn't seem to think that it matters (even though it does). If you want to claim that IC systems came about in one fell swoop, then you must show IC systems coming about in one fell swoop.
quote: What parts of evolution are subjective? (serious question BTW) This cuts to the root of how to falsify a theory. If the theory is totally subjective, then it can not be potentially falsified. If ID is not subjective, then give us an objective way to falsify the creation of IC systems through intelligent design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
JP,
If I could respectfully disagree with my evo counterparts for a moment. Science doesn't require a mechanism (although it is desirable) for any inferred occurrence, & so being the consistent creature that I am, I don't see why we should have to have a designer or indeed a mechanism for design, in order to infer design. If science is the inference (making of a hypothesis) from a given observation, then again, fairs fair, you CAN infer design from complexity if you so wish. But it all boils down to the testability of the hypothesis/inference (the important science bit). I could infer that because the grass on my lawn is lying flat this morning, a herd of ethereal wildebeest trampled it overnight. I couldn't test the inference, of course, which renders the hypothesis evidentially equal to fairies existing at the bottom of my garden, whom incidentally could also be responsible for the vandalism, but there you go. So the crux of the issue is, as I see it, that whatever observation you make & infer design from, you need to be able to test whether it was design, or not. Attempting to prop up the hypothesis with further arguments with exactly the same failing simply won't do. An analogy would be to notice a broken twig on the tree in my back garden that the wildebeest might have broken as they hurtled over my beloved back lawn. If ID is going to be credible science then it needs to have its inferences tested. Furthermore, if the hypothesis is wrong, it should be knowably wrong. Simply saying, "whoa, look at that complexity, I infer design from it", isn't good enough in & of itself to be considered valid science. Scientists speculate like this all the time, & they would be the first to admit speculation isn't science unless it is testable. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Very convenient. ID is the process. How does it happen?
quote: Nonsense. What use is this theory then? We don't know anything substantial about it. We don't know what the design is for. We don't know when the designer designed. We don't know who the designer is. We don't understand the design. The only thing that is clear is that you have redefined 'design' to be whatever you want.
quote: This is a major part of your problem. You cannot support your viewpoint with any kind of independent evidence. That's what Wegener thought too.
quote: Irrelevant to the discussion. However, we can connect a lot more dots than you seem to even care about.
quote: Thank you for your opinion. Can you address the point now?
quote: Nonsense. Where have you done this? You simply dismiss requests for supporting evidence as 'irrelevant', while demanding ever more detail from us. You have no explanation for the fossil record, for instance.
quote: Perhaps if you understood it better...
quote: Yeah, that explains everything!
quote: That's fine by me. Evolution is a biological theory that explains the fossil record; what is your explanation: 'billions of animals died and were buried!'). Geological evidence supports the theory of evolution, what independent science supports ID?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Paul: Design IS the mechanism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- edge: Very convenient. ID is the process. How does it happen? John Paul:Most likely very similar to the way humans design things. However that too is irrelevant to detecting and understanding design, which is what ID is about. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- edge: Perhaps it would be good to describe the designer and show us how the designing happened. John Paul: It is not necessary to know anything abbout the design to determine or understand the design. It is not even necessary to understand how it was designed to determine and understand the design. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------edge: Nonsense. John Paul:Please show us why it is necessary for us to know the designer to detect and understand his/ her design. Then carry that over to why it is necessary to know how something was designed in order to detect and understand the design. edge:What use is this theory then? John Paul:What use is it to remain ignorant? Why don't you just start reading about ID? edge:We don't know anything substantial about it. John Paul:That is generally how things start. edge:We don't know what the design is for. John Paul:That is why we study things- so we can figure them out. edge:We don't know when the designer designed. We don't know who the designer is. John Paul:Those are irrelevant to detecting and understanding the design. Do you have to know who designed your computer in order to understand your computer? edge:We don't understand the design. John Paul:That is what sciense is for. If we had all the answers we wouldn't need science. edge:The only thing that is clear is that you have redefined 'design' to be whatever you want. John Paul:That is pure bullsh!+. ID uses the same definition for design that other sciences already use. edge:You cannot support your viewpoint with any kind of independent evidence. John Paul:Your ignorance is not a refutation. Independent evidence has been provided. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- edge: In the meantime you simply reject every line of evidence for evolution because you, personally, did not see the act happening and do not understand some of the basic geological concepts involved (i.e.: 'billions of animals died and were buried'.) REAL heavy stuff, JP. John Paul: I reject the evidence for the ToE because it isn't compelling. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------edge: Perhaps if you understood it better... John Paul:I understand it very well. I also understand that there isn't any evidence, in peer-reviewed rags or not, that shows mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to metazoans from non-metazoans. BTW the ToE does not explain the fossil record. If it did Gould and Eldricge would not have proposed punctuated equilibrium. However biology and genetics don't support punk eek. Oh well...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Can you give a few examples of such systems and explain how you know, with 100% surety, that they will never, ever be found to have natural origins?
schraf: Also, how do they know it is IC and not a natural occurence they don't understand? quote: ...except that you are inferring, especially in the case of IC, that a lack of a naturalistic explanation for a specific system points to ID. What I do not understand is why the fact that Biologists do not have perfect knowledge of the naturalistic origins of every single system known somehow should support ID as opposed to supporting any one of an infinite number of alternate possibilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
JP, I noticed that you "forgot" to address this rather direct question about ID from a very short post of mine. I know your posting privileges are suspended, but in case you come back to this thread, I thought I'd let you know that I noticed and that I still would appreciate a response.
Tell me, does ID predict how many IC systems should be found in nature, and by what meachanism they are produced? For instance, can they take a pure strain of bacteria and predict how many, what kind, and how many generations it will take for IC mechanisms will be produced?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
LM:
We can't give a blow by blow account. That is why ID is an argument from ignorance. They claim that since we can't give a blow by blow, then ID has to be correct. John Paul:Another misrepresentation. ID is not an argument from ignorance. It is an argument from our current state of knowledge. That current state of knowledge shows that every time we see specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems they are ALWAYS the result of an intelligent agency. IOW there is not one case of specified complexity or information-rich systems arising without the aid of intelliegence. LM:If you want to claim that IC systems came about in one fell swoop, then you must show IC systems coming about in one fell swoop. John Paul:IC comes about as it always has, by design. Since fair is fair if you want to say that IC can come about via purely natural processes it is up to you to show that it can. LM:What parts of evolution are subjective? John Paul:The fossil record is very subjective. Also the emergence of new body plans is subjective (no evidence to support that claim). Using similarities is subjective- similarities could also be the result of a common design. Add those to the fact there isn't any evidence that shows mutations could accumulate in such a way as to give any indication the ToE is indicative of reality and you have one subjective hypothesis. How to falsify IC? Show those alleged IC systems can come about via purely natural processes. Do that and inferring an IDer becomes very unnecessary to infer an IDer. Falsifying the ToE- how do we do that? Some say if we find "out-of-place" fossils. However that would only falsify, or call in to question, the history of life on this planet and not the ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Oh well, to bad they do...at its most basic level, every mutation is a punctuated event..in any case Science. 1996 Jun 21;272(5269):1802-4. Related Articles, Links Comment in:Science. 1996 Dec 6;274(5293):1748-50. Science. 1996 Jun 21;272(5269):1741. Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations. Elena SF, Cooper VS, Lenski RE. Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 48824, USA. selena@ant.css.msu.edu For more than two decades there has been intense debate over the hypothesis that most morphological evolution occurs during relatively brief episodes of rapid change that punctuate much longer periods of stasis. A clear and unambiguous case of punctuated evolution is presented for cell size in a population of Escherichia coli evolving for 3000 generations in a constant environment. The punctuation is caused by natural selection as rare, beneficial mutations sweep successively through the population. This experiment shows that the most elementary processes in population genetics can give rise to punctuated evolution dynamics. There are dozens of other references to exactly this topic...which..drum roll please, are actually supported by observation and experimental evidence...can't say that for the "I don't understand it so it must have been designed" crowd...oh well
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
scraf:
Tell me, does ID predict how many IC systems should be found in nature, and by what meachanism they are produced? John Paul:Design is the mechanism but ID does not predict how many would be found just that IC systems would be found. schraf:For instance, can they take a pure strain of bacteria and predict how many, what kind, and how many generations it will take for IC mechanisms will be produced? John Paul:What's a pure strain of bacteria? Does such a thing exist? The designer could most likely make that prediction, just like a computer programmer could tell you when certain features of his/ her program would be enabled. Now here is a question for you, seeing you seem to like peer-reviewed rags so much- Where is the peer-reviewed data that shows mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to metazoans from non-metazoans? Or even cetaceans from land anumals...sc
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024