The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

Dan, ID says that intelligence (an intelligent agency) designed life. It does NOT say that the designer played any role in the evolutionary process.Dan:
Then what is the relevance of IC?John Paul:
The relevance of IC is that purely natural processes can't account for it.Dan:
If the evolutionary process doesn't require intelligence, I mean.John Paul:
The process doesn't require intelligence. The information to produce IC systems is programmed in at the beginning. That is what IDists such as Behe suggests.

JP,I put your material out of order, hope it's not too confusing.

quote:

---

Do you know why Dobzhansky stated that "..prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms"?

---

I agree with Dobzhansky. Without life there is no natural selection. Without a language, the language can't change and split off into local dialects. Without a car, car design can't change over time. Without matter, the evolution of star formation can't proceed. The same contradiction can be seen in this phrase: "Star formation pre-Big Bang?" People have been telling you over and over, evolution only starts once there is an imperfect replicator. The theory that covers the formation of that first replicator is Abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis works by different mechanisms than does evolution, hence prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms.

quote:

---

Show me one place where that mechanism produced design from scratch.

---

Just as an organism starts with unmutated DNA, this circuit started out as a mass of transistors and other hardware. Through mutation and selection, it assembled itself into a radio receiver.News articles and features | New ScientistThe amazing thing is that they were trying to pressure the evolution of the circuit to produce an oscilloscope. What happened is that the evolved circuit tuned into the radio frequencies of a neighboring computer to output the needed oscillations. Even more stunning, the circuit wasn't even provided an antenna. Instead, the circuit used what it had available, a long piece of wire that was part of the circuit board. Again, design is produced via mutations (in this case, random connections between transistors and other paraphenalia) and selection (each connection that bettered the circuit was kept). Although it isn't mentioned in the article, how much do you want to bet that IC was created in this process?

So where is the programming that dictates evolution happens, rather than just allows it? No, it's not. That's an assertion that can be made regardless of IC. It's an untested premise, not relevance.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-10-2004 04:37 PM

quote:

---

The process doesn't require intelligence. The information to produce IC systems is programmed in at the beginning. That is what IDists such as Behe suggests.

---

So Behe should be able to predict future changes in morphology and function. Where are those predictions? Where is the evidence for front-loaded adaption and change? Dare I say "figment of Behe's imagination".Secondly, you have put forth the following falsification for ID: If life can be shown to rise from non-life, then ID is falsified. I really don't see how this falsifies ID. Firstly, we are limited to life as it appears on Earth. There might be intelligent life elsewhere that is constructed in a way that could quite plausibly arise from non-living matter. All they have to do is construct an imperfect replicator that isn't front-loaded in the manner that you and Behe contend. Therefore, life arises on Earth artificially, but evolves naturally without the input of an intelligent designer. This is all wild fancy, but it does leave a loophole that your falsification doesn't cover.

irreducibly complex systems may not have separable subsystems, and any such argument is flawed (see page 38 of behe's book) since that system can then be reduced to that subsystem of subsystems.the bacterial flagellum contains a type 3 secretory system. therefor, it is not irreducibly complex, as you can reduce it to the secretory system. qed. it's called a simulation. you program it with the rules of evolution, it produces ic systems all the time.however, if you want to believe something intelligently designed the rules of natural selection, go right ahead. i happen to believe so too, but don't try to call that science. it's religion. in science we observe the natural world and it's processes and laws, not onder how those laws got there (unless you're in grand unification...) no, but the fact that behe disproves himself before he gets 40 pages in kind of rules out his argument.

The process doesn't require intelligence. The information to produce IC systems is programmed in at the beginning. That is what IDists such as Behe suggests.Mark:
So where is the programming that dictates evolution happens, rather than just allows it?John Paul:
In the DNA, cytoskeleton and membrane of living organisms.The relevance of IC is that purely natural processes can't account for it.Mark:
No, it's not. That's an assertion that can be made regardless of IC. It's an untested premise, not relevance.John Paul:
Funny ALL of our knowledge an dexperience points to an intelligent cause when we observe IC. Go figure...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The process doesn't require intelligence. The information to produce IC systems is programmed in at the beginning. That is what IDists such as Behe suggests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
So Behe should be able to predict future changes in morphology and function.John Paul:
I love conclusion jumpers. 99% they are wrong. Behe can't predict changes because evolutionists won't allow ID in the door. Until ID is allowed no one will decipher any genome. That is what would be required to predict changes. Right now all evolutionists can predict is change- why do we need a theory for that?

Arach:
irreducibly complex systems may not have separable subsystems, and any such argument is flawed (see page 38 of behe's book) since that system can then be reduced to that subsystem of subsystems.John Paul:
That is wrong. Maybe you just don't understand what you are reading: What Behe really says:"The key misleading assertion in the article is the following: Moreover, the individual parts of complex structures supposedly serve no function. In other words, opponents of design want to assert that if the individual parts of a putatively IC structure can be used for anything at all other than their role in the system under consideration, then the system itself is not IC. So, for example, Kenneth Miller has seriously argued that a part of a mousetrap could be used as a paperweight, so not even a mousetrap is IC. Now, anything that has mass could be used as a paperweight. Thus by Miller’s tendentious reasoning any part of any system at all has a separate function. Presto! There is no such thing as irreducible complexity.

​

That’s what often happens when people who are adamantly opposed to an idea publicize their own definitions of its key terms--the terms are manipulated to wage a PR battle. The evident purpose of Miller and others is to make the concept of IC so brittle that it easily crumbles. However, they are building a straw man. I never wrote that individual parts of an IC system couldn’t be used for any other purpose. (That would be silly--who would ever claim that a part of a mousetrap couldn’t be used as a paperweight, or a decoration, or a blunt weapon?) Quite the opposite, I clearly wrote in Darwin’s Black Box that even if the individual parts had their own functions, that still does not account for the irreducible complexity of the system. In fact, it would most likely exacerbate the problem, as I stated when considering whether parts lying around a garage could be used to make a mousetrap without intelligent intervention."Arach:
the bacterial flagellum contains a type 3 secretory system. therefor, it is not irreducibly complex, as you can reduce it to the secretory system. qed.John Paul:
That is false. The bac flag contains 10 proteins homologous to 10 proteins in the type III. Also phylogenetic analysis shows that if anything the type III evolved from the bac flag.Arach:
it's called a simulation. you program it with the rules of evolution, it produces ic systems all the time.John Paul:
What rules? Those who survive to produce more offspring produce more offspring? Too bad every attempt top do so has been refuted, including the EV.Arach:
no, but the fact that behe disproves himself before he gets 40 pages in kind of rules out his argument.John Paul:
I have already shown you didn't read him very well. This is just more evidence that you didn't.

LM:
Just as an organism starts with unmutated DNA, this circuit started out as a mass of transistors and other hardware. Through mutation and selection, it assembled itself into a radio receiver.John Paul:
The issue here is that it had ALL of the components necessary at its disposal. That is the basic premise Behe is getting to. IF organisms had all the information and material handy then IC could come about.The circuit "survived" because of what? If they were trying to get an o'scope, what we allow it to survive until it got to that stage?

I'll ask again, WHERE IS IT? Where is the program that causesevolution? I've seen nothing about DNA, a cytoskeleton, & a cell membrane that would lead me to conclude that they contain programming that would deliberately cause change in a given direction.Might I venture the conclusion that you are making an assertion unwarranted by evidence? But there are potential evolutionary paths to IC, so you cannot conclude design based on the existence of IC. It's called logic, so go figure yourself.....Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mark:
So where is the programming that dictates evolution happens, rather than just allows it?
John Paul:
In the DNA, cytoskeleton and membrane of living organisms.Mark:
I'll ask again, WHERE IS IT? Where is the program that causesevolution? I've seen nothing about DNA, a cytoskeleton, & a cell membrane that would lead me to conclude that they contain programming that would deliberately cause change in a given direction.John Paul:
Then I would say you know little about developmental biology or embryology. Why does the change have to be deliberate? Why was that added? The change is the organisms reaction to the environment or its internal program, ie the information contained in the DNA, membrane & cytoskeleton.Mark:
But there are potential evolutionary paths to IC, so you cannot conclude design based on the existence of IC. It's called logic, so go figure yourself.....John Paul:
If these pathways exist they don't exist in scientific literature and they don't include RANDOM mutations culled by NS. And we don't conclude ID based solely on IC. Spoecified complexity and information rich systems always lead to an intelligent agency.This message has been edited by John Paul, 06-11-2004 12:33 PM

quote:

---

LM:
So Behe should be able to predict future changes in morphology and function.
John Paul:
I love conclusion jumpers. 99% they are wrong. Behe can't predict changes because evolutionists won't allow ID in the door. Until ID is allowed no one will decipher any genome. That is what would be required to predict changes. Right now all evolutionists can predict is change- why do we need a theory for that?

---

So, in other words, front-loaded instructions in DNA are an unsupported, empty assertion. Thanks for clearing that up.Also, evolutionists have found the MECHANISM behind the change. This is very useful, especially in searching for hereditary diseases by comparing genomes between species. It is also useful in studying ecological dynamics. What discoveries has ID lead to?

is on a rant again on the merits of IC/ID without ever telling us what is so great about the concept. Basically, it's nothing more than a hollow backdoor to ye-creationism. No scientific merit, no predictive or retrodictive power. It's nothing but hyperbole aimed at the unscientific mind.CheersJoe Meert

actually, anything with mass can be used as a mousetrap. in my experience, bricks work rather well. it just takes blunt force trauma to kill a mouse, not springs and catchs and doodads. the function is only dependent on one part of the system, producing force. but this is not my argument. the argument is that if you can reduce the system to any set of functioning components, it is reasonable to assert that through slight and successive modification, the system might have evolved.behe even states, on page 38, that arguments that only answer major systems but treat subsystems as whole components are flawed. he makes the analogy of the stereo system. he admits, yes you just add the amplifier and speakers to the cd player, but he's looking for the amplifier and speakers, not the overall stereo system.but, if even changing function and the fact that you can reduce his examples to components still doesn't statisfy you, maybe this will.http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/Mousetraps.htmlhow to evolve a mousetrap, in six steps. i've seen a few others, but this works nicely. i'll quote kenneth miller: "STRONGLY homologous."it's called variation. get used to it, it's the basic concept of evolution, and easily demonstrated from observations of nature. and? no. random slight variation, most effective example is picked. this is also not stricly true in nature, because nature doesn't remove ALL EXCEPT the most suited. he says that an irreducibly complex system does not function if you remove any of the parts. he corrects himself in a debate with miller, to say that it no longer has the function of original system.well, duh!here's an example of an ic system. i'm into photography, so i'll pick a camera. it's clear a camera was intelligently designed, of course, in fact i can even tell you which company made mine and when it was designed.every part of the system is necessary to make a picture. you have the film, the film back, the body with shutter, the finder, the reflex mirror, and the lens. if you remove the lens, no recognizable image is made. if you remove the film, no picture is made. if you remove the film back, the film is exposed all over an no image is made. same with the body. without the finder and mirror, there is no way to compose the image. without the reflex mechanism, the mirror blocks the film.every part is needed. or is it? i take a lot of picture without looking through the finder at all, so we can rule those out. what about the lens? look into pinhole photography. lots of neat pictures can be made without a lens. the back? can be integrated into the body.turns out the only two parts we need are the film and the body. lots of great pictures can be made with a cardboard box, tape, a sheet of sensitized paper, and a hole. but what about that system? well, the hole and an area of darkness is all we really need, actually. the film is just there to record the image created, and the box to localize the darkness and make it portable.basically, my fancy irreducibly complex camera is just a glorified hole. and i could easily show you, step by step, how cameras would have evolved, had they been a biological system. however, in technology, the process is very similar. people reproduce technologies, add a little feature here and there, and repeat. very seldom is a new design created from scratch. it's almost always built on previous advancements. so the analogy plays.

IC is not relevant for another reason. At its very heart, IC is about the exploitation of scientific ignorance. It plays upon that which we do not know in a vain attempt to claim it can never be known. The atom was once considered irreducibly complex but then science discovered it was composed of smaller parts that gave each atom its 'identity'. These smaller parts were also considered irreducibly complex until it was shown that the smaller particles are made of different flavored quarks that give the smaller parts their identity. My only hope is that Behe does not teach what he preaches. It is dangerous to teach young scientists that a problem has no solution. Irreducible complexity can be reduced to scientific ignorance and Behe should be embarrassed to promote such nonsense to make a buck and a book tour.CheersJoe Meert