|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, if you dismiss the fossil record with a hand wave, I suppose so. Unfortunately, most of us cannot ignore the evidence.
quote: Nope. You are ignoring evidence again.
quote: You have evidence? Please present it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024