|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: peer reviewed-int. design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frankypoo Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Here's one from Pubmed:
Hemostasis and irreducible complexity - PubMed quote: I suggest you go to Pubmed.org and search for "irreducible complexity." You'll get plenty. I sure did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frankypoo Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
ok
[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 03-15-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Clams.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
scallops
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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:
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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024