Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 182 (110781)
05-26-2004 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by John Paul
05-26-2004 12:30 PM


quote:
John Paul:
That is NOT what I have claimed. There is evidence for evolution however there isn't any evidence for the claims made by evolutionists pertaining to the grand sweep of the ToE.
Well, if you dismiss the fossil record with a hand wave, I suppose so. Unfortunately, most of us cannot ignore the evidence.
quote:
John Paul:
... IOW all you can show us is variations.
Nope. You are ignoring evidence again.
quote:
Even when evidence such as irreducible complexity is put before your eyes all you can do is cry "it isn't so", wah, wah, wah.
You have evidence? Please present it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by John Paul, posted 05-26-2004 12:30 PM John Paul has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 182 (110829)
05-27-2004 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by John Paul
05-26-2004 12:39 PM


Re: Something About a Tornado in a Junkyard
Yet when looked at we see the same % of difference in some molecules in bacteria and all other organisms. Cytochrome C comes to mind. Not exactly what the ToE would predict.
You are wrong - what we see in the Cytochrome C differences IS exactly what the ToE would predict. The difference between any two-species - at least in a highly-conserved molecule like cytochrome-C - is dependant to the time since the most recent common ancestor.
Thus all life forms which share the same most-recent-common-ancestor with a eukaryotic bacterium will have (approximately) the same amount of difference between their cytochrome-C and the bacterium's.
On the other hand, the differences between species with a more recent common ancestor should be smaller - as they are.
Although there are enough chance influences that we cannot expect the differences to exactly match - we are relying on neutral drift to fix the changes in the various populations - the results still strongly support evolution
See this page for more detail:
Coming soon page | Register your own domain at GKG.NET

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by John Paul, posted 05-26-2004 12:39 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 33 of 182 (110932)
05-27-2004 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by John Paul
05-26-2004 12:20 PM


Re: Ignoring the Evidence
John Paul writes:
Irreducible complexity is disconfirming evidence for modern synthesis. Bacterial flagella is but one of many IC systems we observe in biological organisms.
You keep repeating this, but you also keep failing to address the response. IC is not evidence, but an interpretation, just as evolution is not evidence, but an interpretation. We're not ignoring evidence, just pointing out that not only do you have no evidence for IC, you also have no evidence for your proposed mechanism.
Evolution, on the other hand, has much evidence. Behe, who you've quoted several times, accepts almost all of evolution. He only questions its ability to produce structures he feels are irreducibly complex. He has no evidence, only his claim that they are irreducibly complex, a claim widely questioned and fairly thoroughly rebutted, including the example of the flagella you mentioned, and probably already described for you in other threads.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John Paul, posted 05-26-2004 12:20 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by John Paul, posted 06-09-2004 3:31 PM Percy has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 182 (113941)
06-09-2004 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
05-27-2004 4:14 PM


Re: Ignoring the Evidence
Percy (on IC):
a claim widely questioned and fairly thoroughly rebutted,
John Paul:
I keep hearing that IC has been rebutted but upon close examination it is really only rhetoric. For example, phylogenetic analysis shows that if anything the type III sec. evolved from the flagella. That alone puts evolutionists back beyond square one.
IOW, as with sexual reproduction, evolutionists have no evidence on how many systems evolved. What they do have is credulity- a belief that those systems did evolve. Fine for sundae school but not for the science classroom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 05-27-2004 4:14 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by MrHambre, posted 06-09-2004 4:43 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 90 by nator, posted 06-15-2004 2:11 PM John Paul has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 35 of 182 (113950)
06-09-2004 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John Paul
05-04-2004 1:53 PM


Re: Nobel Prizes Don't Count
MRHambre, If you can't refute my statement just say so. Can I substantiate my claim? The fact that evolutionists haven't been able to refute it speaks volumes.
Not being able to refute something doesn't show that it's correct necessarily. In fact, the fact that you can't even describe a way in which it COULD be refuted goes a long way to refuting it itself.
As an example which has been used in some sort before, refute the fact that an invisible pink pixie is sitting on your shoulder telepathically controlling everything you do or say. Making a claim that has no predicitve power or any way to refute it can be done millions of times over. The reason the "naturalistic" description is usually accepted is that it can be refuted, and therefore can change as evidence changes to better fit the world we see.

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 05-04-2004 1:53 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 2:44 PM Perdition has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 36 of 182 (113969)
06-09-2004 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by John Paul
06-09-2004 3:31 PM


Why 'IC' Is Irrelevant
John Paul,
The reason no one here is impressed with the IC argument is that we have never been given a reason to consider irreducibly complex natural phenomena or biological structures evidence for the inadequacy of natural mechanisms. The BacFlag or the human heart or eye may be IC, and we may or may not currently understand fully the developmental pathway of such organs. However, we consider that the same mutation-selection process that creates organisms and their organs is a more plausible explanation for their origin than a mechanism we've never seen create a human heart or eye or bacterial flagellum.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by John Paul, posted 06-09-2004 3:31 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2004 12:36 AM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 39 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 2:40 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 37 of 182 (114048)
06-10-2004 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by MrHambre
06-09-2004 4:43 PM


Re: Why 'IC' Is Irrelevant
well, that and the fact that although the heart and eye and bacterial flagellum are complex, they are not irreducibly so. and even if they were, evolutionary algorithms routinely produce ic systems in computer simulations.
basically, i don't see the point of argument anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by MrHambre, posted 06-09-2004 4:43 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 2:36 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 182 (114172)
06-10-2004 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by arachnophilia
06-10-2004 12:36 AM


Re: Why 'IC' Is Irrelevant
Arachno:
well, that and the fact that although the heart and eye and bacterial flagellum are complex, they are not irreducibly so.
John Paul:
I am not sure about the heart but the vision system and bacterial flagellum are demonstratably so (IC).
Arach:
and even if they were, evolutionary algorithms routinely produce ic systems in computer simulations.
John Paul:
And that shows us that ID can get around IC. Afterall it takes ID to make the computer, the program and the parameters.
Arach:
basically, i don't see the point of argument anymore.
John Paul:
Of course you don't. However that will not make it go away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2004 12:36 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-10-2004 2:50 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 42 by Loudmouth, posted 06-10-2004 2:54 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 06-11-2004 2:13 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 182 (114173)
06-10-2004 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by MrHambre
06-09-2004 4:43 PM


Re: Why 'IC' Is relevant
MrH:
'The reason no one here is impressed with the IC argument is that we have never been given a reason to consider irreducibly complex natural phenomena or biological structures evidence for the inadequacy of natural mechanisms.
John Paul:
The point is there isn't any evidence that natural mechanisms can produce IC. IOW all you have is credulity that NM can do so.
MrH:
However, we consider that the same mutation-selection process that creates organisms and their organs is a more plausible explanation for their origin than a mechanism we've never seen create a human heart or eye or bacterial flagellum.
John Paul:
What mutation-selection process creates organisms? What mutation-selection process created their organs? All you have is speculation based on the assumption that the ToE is indicative of reality. IOW you don't have any evidence to support what you just posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by MrHambre, posted 06-09-2004 4:43 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 182 (114175)
06-10-2004 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Perdition
06-09-2004 3:59 PM


Re: Nobel Prizes Don't Count
Perdition:
In fact, the fact that you can't even describe a way in which it COULD be refuted goes a long way to refuting it itself.
John Paul:
Been there, done that. All you have to do to refute what I stated is to show one research venue that counts on all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Perdition, posted 06-09-2004 3:59 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 182 (114177)
06-10-2004 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by John Paul
06-10-2004 2:36 PM


Re: Why 'IC' Is Irrelevant
Arach:
and even if they were, evolutionary algorithms routinely produce ic systems in computer simulations.
John Paul:
And that shows us that ID can get around IC. Afterall it takes ID to make the computer, the program and the parameters.
But even then, wouldn't the parallel just be that intelligence is behind the universe, and the physical laws therein, and not the actual evolutionary process?

"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 2:36 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 4:04 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 182 (114178)
06-10-2004 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by John Paul
06-10-2004 2:36 PM


Re: Why 'IC' Is Irrelevant
quote:
John Paul:
And that shows us that ID can get around IC. Afterall it takes ID to make the computer, the program and the parameters.
This is a cop out. The mechanism, mutation and selection, happens whether it is in a computer or in an organisms DNA. If we create a computer model that shows how difference in air pressure and temperature cause hurricanes, does this mean that natural hurricanes are intelligently designed? Of course not. The computer simulation is merely a model constructed to reflect reality. The process of mutation and selection is capable of producing design. Period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 2:36 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 4:06 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 182 (114196)
06-10-2004 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dan Carroll
06-10-2004 2:50 PM


Re: Why 'IC' Is relevant
Arach:
and even if they were, evolutionary algorithms routinely produce ic systems in computer simulations.
John Paul:
And that shows us that ID can get around IC. Afterall it takes ID to make the computer, the program and the parameters.
Dan:
But even then, wouldn't the parallel just be that intelligence is behind the universe, and the physical laws therein, and not the actual evolutionary process?
John Paul:
Dan, ID says that intelligence (an intelligent agency) designed life. It does NOT say that the designer played any role in the evolutionary process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-10-2004 2:50 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-10-2004 4:44 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 182 (114197)
06-10-2004 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Loudmouth
06-10-2004 2:54 PM


Re: Why 'IC' Is relevant
LM:
The process of mutation and selection is capable of producing design. Period.
John Paul:
Show me one place where that mechanism produced design from scratch. Do you know why Dobzhansky stated that "..prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms"?
This message has been edited by John Paul, 06-10-2004 03:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Loudmouth, posted 06-10-2004 2:54 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Loudmouth, posted 06-10-2004 5:31 PM John Paul has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 182 (114206)
06-10-2004 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by John Paul
06-10-2004 4:04 PM


Re: Why 'IC' Is relevant
Dan, ID says that intelligence (an intelligent agency) designed life. It does NOT say that the designer played any role in the evolutionary process.
Then what is the relevance of IC? If the evolutionary process doesn't require intelligence, I mean.

"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 4:04 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 5:08 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024