Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   peer reviewed-int. design?
Frankypoo
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 25 (90429)
03-04-2004 11:59 PM


Are there peer reviewed articles that anyone knows of on intelligent design/irrudicible complexity (wether for or against) that appeal to science rather than the political issue? Thanks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2004 12:58 AM Frankypoo has not replied
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 06-10-2004 5:19 PM Frankypoo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 25 (90436)
03-05-2004 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Frankypoo
03-04-2004 11:59 PM


Here's one from Pubmed:
Hemostasis and irreducible complexity - PubMed
quote:
Hemostasis and irreducible complexity.
Aird WC.
Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. waird@caregroup.harvard.edu
Coagulation evolved as a means to stem the loss of blood and to defend against pathogens. The complexity of the clotting cascade has been cited as evidence for the existence of divine intervention. The objective of this review is to draw on the debate between creationists and evolutionary biologists to highlight important evolutionary principles that underlie the hemostatic mechanism. I propose the following: (a) as with all biological systems, the hemostatic mechanism displays non-linear complexity; (b) the cellular response represents primary hemostasis owing to its place in the evolutionary time scale and functional importance; and (c) the rapid evolution of the hemostatic mechanism in vertebrates is testimony to the power and versatility of gene duplications and exon shuffling.
I suggest you go to Pubmed.org and search for "irreducible complexity." You'll get plenty. I sure did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Frankypoo, posted 03-04-2004 11:59 PM Frankypoo has not replied

  
Frankypoo
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 25 (91034)
03-07-2004 8:39 PM


Oh dear.. I don't have access to that database. I'm at a community college, and every seemingly good reference I find on flagella, eye evolution, and blood clotting isn't available in my library's database. Know of any good free databases?

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 03-07-2004 8:42 PM Frankypoo has not replied
 Message 16 by Wounded King, posted 06-16-2004 6:56 AM Frankypoo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 25 (91035)
03-07-2004 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Frankypoo
03-07-2004 8:39 PM


Know of any good free databases?
Why don't you ask the reference librarian?T hey can probably help you out.
Never underestimate the power of a good librarian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Frankypoo, posted 03-07-2004 8:39 PM Frankypoo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2004 5:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 25 (92613)
03-15-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
03-07-2004 8:42 PM


Eye Design
Richard Dawkins covers eye design in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" - see chapter 4 (p77 in paperback edition)
also see:
Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye
enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 03-07-2004 8:42 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2004 5:04 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 3:50 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 25 (92615)
03-15-2004 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
03-15-2004 5:02 PM


Re: Eye Design
ok
[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 03-15-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2004 5:02 PM RAZD has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 25 (114191)
06-10-2004 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
03-15-2004 5:02 PM


Re: Eye Design
RAZD:
Richard Dawkins covers eye design in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" - see chapter 4 (p77 in paperback edition)
John Paul:
And Mike Behe trashes his clumsiness in the book Darwin's Black Box. IOW Dawkins is guilty, as Behe states, of gross anatomy. He uses generalizations void of detail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2004 5:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 06-10-2004 4:32 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2004 12:04 AM John Paul has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 25 (114202)
06-10-2004 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Paul
06-10-2004 3:50 PM


Re: Eye Design
Clams.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 3:50 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 5:09 PM jar has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 25 (114210)
06-10-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
06-10-2004 4:32 PM


Re: Eye Design
scallops

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 06-10-2004 4:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 06-10-2004 5:28 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 25 (114211)
06-10-2004 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Frankypoo
03-04-2004 11:59 PM


One more from http://www.pubmed.com
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2002 Dec;981:189-201.
Developmental robustness.
Keller EF.
California Institute of Technology, Humanities and Social Sciences, Pasadena, CA 91125-7700, USA. efkeller@mit.edu
Developmental robustness, the capacity to stay "on track" despite the myriad vicissitudes that inevitably plague a developing organism, is, I argue, a prerequisite for natural selection and key to our understanding of the evolution of developmental processes. But how is such robustness achieved? And how can we reconcile this property with the delicate precision that seems to characterize so many developmental mechanisms, with what Michael Behe calls "irreducible complexity"? By looking at context, I argue. Developmental mechanisms must be robust with respect to the kinds of insults they are most likely to face, but with respect to less likely vicissitudes, they can be fragile. More specifically, I examine the relative absence of reaction-diffusion mechanisms in development and suggest that such mechanisms, theoretically attractive though they may be, have been judged by evolution to be ill suited for providing protection against the kinds of vicissitudes developing organisms are most likely to face, and have been supplanted by more intricate mechanisms that are protected from insult by structural design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Frankypoo, posted 03-04-2004 11:59 PM Frankypoo has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 11 of 25 (114214)
06-10-2004 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John Paul
06-10-2004 5:09 PM


Re: Eye Design
Very good. Scallops as well.
And that is some of the best evidence against ID.
If we look out and examine something like seeing, what we find is not a design, but rather a whole basketfull of solutions to the problem of seeing. We find simple surface cells that are light sensitive, pin hole camera type systems as in the Nautilus, compound eyes, compound lens, binolcular eyes, two part dual focal length eyes, eyes that see at different wave lengths, eyes that operate seperately and independantly, eyes that work in combination with other organs to see from IR to UV.
Variety like that, even when limited to providing the same functions, is not characteristic of design, but rather making do or good enough. What we see are not designs but jury rigs, things that are good enough to get the job done but certainly nothing to be proud of.
When we look at nature, what we see is not the race car sitting in the paddock, but rather the patched up, beat up thing, held together with thousand mile an hour tape and bondo. It is not design, it is cobbled, patched, jury rigged and just good enough to (hopefully and wishfully) get by.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 5:09 PM John Paul has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 25 (114302)
06-11-2004 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Paul
06-10-2004 3:50 PM


Re: Eye Design
ROFLOL
(1) behe is not credible, as has been shown on many occasions.
(2) this is just a statement on your part. details some of the specifics please. perhaps you can explain what you mean by "gross anatomy" -- parts of the body that you find gross?
what I see is a listing of various stepsvolve an eye without the need to do it "all at once" complete with needed to e examples of current organisms with similar functions. This not only lays out a path of evolution but shows actual examples along the path.
I have the feeling that "gross anatomy" would still be the complaint if every single little evolutionary step was shown to exist in related species of one genera, somthing that obviously is not needed to show that the claim of "irreducible complexity" is hogwash in this case: every single existing working eye along the ladder of evolution is a refutation of the claim that the eye needs to be evolved all at once.
Notice in particular the Nautilus eye -- without a lens:
like a pin-hole camera, but otherwise very similar to the human eye ... except for one minor(?) difference of a better arrangement of the retina and the optical nerves: know what it is?
Notice also that the webpage referenced is not Dawkins but PBS info with a video clip, information that is not covered by Behe's bombast.
care to give more than opinion?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 3:50 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 2:09 PM RAZD has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 25 (114477)
06-11-2004 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
06-11-2004 12:04 AM


Re: Eye Design
RAZD:
1) behe is not credible, as has been shown on many occasions.
John Paul:
By whom?
RAZD:
(2) this is just a statement on your part. details some of the specifics please. perhaps you can explain what you mean by "gross anatomy" -- parts of the body that you find gross?
John Paul:
The way you talked about Behe I had figured you read his stuff, my bad. Gross anatomy means that the details are missing. IOW you can say such-n-such evolved but you haven't the evidence to substantiate that claim.
What you or any other evolutionist can show is that random mutations culled by NS led to the development of any vision system. without that evidence all you have is a theory of credulity. IOW all you have is opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2004 12:04 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2004 11:02 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2004 10:13 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2004 2:25 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 07-01-2004 10:44 PM John Paul has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 25 (114573)
06-11-2004 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John Paul
06-11-2004 2:09 PM


Re: Eye Design
there have been whole topics on the lack of credibility of Behe, go find them.
Gross anatomy means that the details are missing. IOW you can say such-n-such evolved but you haven't the evidence to substantiate that claim.
In otherwords, denial. I notice you did not answer the question, no small surprise.
The concept is called "Irreducible Complexity" because it is supposed to be something that cannot operate without all the parts co-evolved at one time. The undeniable fact that there are hundreds of different eyes that are credible intermediate stages in existence in the real world and that they function perfectly well for their needs means that the eye is not irreducibly complex. That is all that needs to be shown to blow Behe's use of the eye out of the water, and any denial of it is just chest puffing bravado void of any reason.
One intermediate example is enough to disprove the concept. That is how science works. Facts are just a bit more than opinion when it comes to things like this.
Sorry, the loss of credibility is yours (oh, and by extension, Behe's, again).
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 2:09 PM John Paul has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 25 (115552)
06-15-2004 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John Paul
06-11-2004 2:09 PM


Re: Eye Design
This is the part of the argument where you are supposed to keep going.
Either (A) concede that the eye is not an irreducibly complex structure or (B) show where the irreducability remains, noting that each part of the eye can be removed in a certain order to become similar to an existing eye in another species.
This argument of "Gross Anatomy" is a faulty smoke screen for the reason that it is the claim of IC that gross anatomical parts cannot be removed and still have a functioning organ.
Balls in your court.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 2:09 PM John Paul 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