Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreduceable Complexity
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 46 of 94 (14618)
08-01-2002 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tranquility Base
07-31-2002 10:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

IC is not a binary result - 'it is a degree of ICness'. It is not a QED.

Are you saying that something can be 'a bit irreducibly complex' ?
Does that make any sense at all?
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

IMO Behe is saying that if evoltuion were true the tell-tale signs of where biochemical systems came from would be evident. They are not. Go read Behe and he will take you through a half dozen examples of well known biochemical systems which have parts that 'have come out of thin air'.

Why would they be 'evident'?
It's taken years of research to even find out that they
exist in the first place, so why assume that an incremental
development scheme (which few are actually looking for on a
case by case basis) would have been found yet?
Everything you have said so far, in my opinion, supports the
view of IC as argument from incredulity.
In the systems with 'parts out of thin air' ... are the
'parts' the irreducibly complex sub-systems?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-31-2002 10:44 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 47 of 94 (14619)
08-01-2002 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
07-31-2002 11:38 PM


I mentioned comets and asteroids too, but the answer seems
to be that it doesn't matter about them 'cause we don't
see 'em all the time, and they don't fit into a trinity
red, green, and blue are the primary colours of light,
though. All the other colours are a mix. if two or more in
varying proportions/intensities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 07-31-2002 11:38 PM nator has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 48 of 94 (14620)
08-01-2002 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tranquility Base
07-31-2002 10:35 PM


I'm sure if you look hard enough, and manipulate the
scenario enough that you can find threes in anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-31-2002 10:35 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by nator, posted 08-02-2002 10:00 AM Peter has not replied

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 94 (14627)
08-01-2002 4:37 AM


quote:
What has occurred is called 'mosaic evoltuion' in the literature. I translate that as 'out of thin air creation'.
If you're talking about bacterial genomes, and it seems you are, haven't you ignored lateral gene transfer? Lateral Gene Transfer actually has a very large impact on bacterial genomes, its the primary reason for the mosaic like phylogenies of bacteria.

  
The Arachnophile
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 94 (14629)
08-01-2002 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tranquility Base
07-31-2002 10:44 PM


"IMO Behe is saying that if evoltuion were true the tell-tale signs of where biochemical systems came from would be evident. They are not. Go read Behe and he will take you through a half dozen examples of well known biochemical systems which have parts that 'have come out of thin air'."
Behe made the famous statement that "There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems." (Darwin's Black Box, page 179). The following webpage proves him wrong, wouldn't you say?
Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution
"It is the same as the hundreds of small molecule metabolic patheways of Ecoli. Regardless of reuse of proteins within genomes the proteins within the pathways are mostly unrelated to each other - they come out of thin air."
I wouldn't say that millions upon milliones of years of evolution is "out of thin air". The problem with ID believers seems to be a lack of the abillity to understand the power of continual evolution through all those years.
The Arachnophile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-31-2002 10:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-01-2002 9:44 AM The Arachnophile has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 94 (14635)
08-01-2002 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by The Arachnophile
08-01-2002 5:34 AM


Hi Arachno
You are all missing the point that Behe made. If you read his book you'll see that he acknowledges that there are tens of 1000s of papers on molecular evolution but almost none of them deal with the origin of genuinely novel proteins and systems. Evolutionists track homologous genes - they'll study supposed duplicaiton events (Haemoglobins etc) and they'll study well founded horizontal transfer. But there is almost no literature on (i) the origin of genuinely new protien families and (ii) the origin of actual subsytems - descibing which proteins first appeared, where from, how they could do the job alone etc. There might be 10 papers on Medline which could be said to cover this area!
Almost everyone who says they study evoltuion either (i) studies microevotluion or (ii) studies homoologies that just as well could be the signature of a common designer. Almost no-one actually answers the quesiton of where the things that don
t have precursors came from.
I'll check out the abstracts on that site and give you a professional opinion ASAP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by The Arachnophile, posted 08-01-2002 5:34 AM The Arachnophile has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Quetzal, posted 08-01-2002 11:53 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 54 by mark24, posted 08-01-2002 8:06 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 52 of 94 (14644)
08-01-2002 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tranquility Base
08-01-2002 9:44 AM


Hi TB:
You've been on about the protein family thing as being a falsification of evolution and support for ID for awhile now. I'm not really sure I follow your reasoning. Could you elucidate a bit?
Since the requirement is (apparently) that novel protein families are necessary for the differentiation of various taxa (and consequently their absence is indicative of the barrier to macroevolution), can you indicate which specific "families" distinguish, f'rinstance, arthropods from chordates? What happens to your theory when families are seen across taxa? Wouldn't that be an indication that the taxa are related somehow? Anyway, I'd appreciate a fuller explanation of the barrier you've postulated (now that I have some time to actually respond to you ). Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-01-2002 9:44 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 08-01-2002 7:43 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 53 of 94 (14671)
08-01-2002 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Quetzal
08-01-2002 11:53 AM


Quetz,
Welcome back!
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Quetzal, posted 08-01-2002 11:53 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 54 of 94 (14673)
08-01-2002 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tranquility Base
08-01-2002 9:44 AM


TB,
Fot the xxth time,
How can you tell a naturally occurring from a non-naturally occurring object?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-01-2002 9:44 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by John, posted 08-01-2002 8:12 PM mark24 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 94 (14674)
08-01-2002 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mark24
08-01-2002 8:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
TB,
Fot the xxth time,
How can you tell a naturally occurring from a non-naturally occurring object?
Mark

Frustragulating init it?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mark24, posted 08-01-2002 8:06 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-01-2002 10:15 PM John has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 94 (14687)
08-01-2002 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by John
08-01-2002 8:12 PM


Mark
I thought I had answered this - sorry. If the system is IC then my first assumption is that it is designed. Like I said earlier, IC systems could potentially be natural but as IC seems to be a systematic feature of life I lean on the other view (). And, yes, ICness is not digital - something might look fairly IC or extremely IC. I personally believe that all of the cellular systems of life are designed and that natural selction has simply optimzed some of these for altered circumstances via point mutations. This belief is well supported but I can't prove it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by John, posted 08-01-2002 8:12 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by John, posted 08-01-2002 11:13 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 08-02-2002 12:15 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 61 by Peter, posted 08-12-2002 5:11 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 94 (14694)
08-01-2002 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tranquility Base
08-01-2002 10:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark
I thought I had answered this - sorry. If the system is IC then my first assumption is that it is designed. Like I said earlier, IC systems could potentially be natural but as IC seems to be a systematic feature of life I lean on the other view (). And, yes, ICness is not digital - something might look fairly IC or extremely IC. I personally believe that all of the cellular systems of life are designed and that natural selction has simply optimzed some of these for altered circumstances via point mutations. This belief is well supported but I can't prove it.

You still have not answered the question. Assuming Chemical X which you believe to be IC, how do we test it? How do we know that it is IC and not merely too complex for us to describe with current knowledge? Until you can answer this, IC is dead in the water.
How? TB How?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-01-2002 10:15 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 58 of 94 (14736)
08-02-2002 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Peter
08-01-2002 3:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
I'm sure if you look hard enough, and manipulate the
scenario enough that you can find threes in anything.

Or fives...
Or sevens...
Or any other "special" number you want to ascribe meaning to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Peter, posted 08-01-2002 3:07 AM Peter has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 59 of 94 (14748)
08-02-2002 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tranquility Base
08-01-2002 10:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark
I thought I had answered this - sorry. If the system is IC then my first assumption is that it is designed. Like I said earlier, IC systems could potentially be natural but as IC seems to be a systematic feature of life I lean on the other view (). And, yes, ICness is not digital - something might look fairly IC or extremely IC. I personally believe that all of the cellular systems of life are designed and that natural selction has simply optimzed some of these for altered circumstances via point mutations. This belief is well supported but I can't prove it.

This going to get circular. First you have to KNOW that something is IC. How do you do that with out a god-of-the-gaps-argument-from-incredulity?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-01-2002 10:15 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by John, posted 08-02-2002 12:32 PM mark24 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 94 (14749)
08-02-2002 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mark24
08-02-2002 12:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
This going to get circular. First you have to KNOW that something is IC. How do you do that with out a god-of-the-gaps-argument-from-incredulity?

Yeah, what he said!
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 08-02-2002 12:15 PM mark24 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