|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions") | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6641 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Actually ID and ICS is a restatement of propositions antecedent to evolutionary theory by several thousand years.
Evolutionary theory has been for a hundred years proposing and suggesting but of course not directly illustrating in the laboratory the possible paths by which nearly every extant species has arrived via the mechanism of mutation and natural selection. I will have no trouble giving you samples from the several thousands of evolutionary publications purporting to do just that. So why pick out those which by other qualified people are proposed to be IC and ID to draw the line at all that work and effort.. seems rather coincidental to me. Now as to the several responses about the foolishness of following a path to its conclusion .. that is what scientists do every day .. exhaustive investigation until the hypothesis and its conclusions are increasingly confirmed by the results. Then it can rightly be called a theory, always remaining subject to the one experiment that falsifies it. Yes it is true that if a system is reducible and still functional that one can continue to degrade it in steps until that is no longer true or the system is not needed in the context of evolutionary change and decent. It is perhaps the only yet proposed method of falsification darwin himself proposed though apparently no one in that camp today thinks such falsification possibilities need be explored...a uniquness of this theory from all others in every other field currently extant. Most sciences have people whose mission in life is to challenge the dominant view and pursue it with vigor... but I suppose that's for those other guys like Einstein who wasn't apparently satisfied with Newton's theory of gravitation, though it was capable of explaining mechanics for all observeable processes. I don't think anyone was fooling around with the perihelian of Mercury until long after special relativity was on the books. Now I commiserate with anyone who puts biology, ID and ICS in the context of Alien searches never suggested by IDers .. thats simply a logical fallacy, at best. Evopeach
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
No, Evopeach, you did not name the topic. The topic is named, "Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions). You may subtitle your messages as you please, but that does not armor your underlying propositions.
You may certainly claim that your observations of the universe suggest a designer, and even rightfully claim that this position predates the theory of evolution. But, as a matter of historical record, the assertion of irreducible complexity in biological systems was made for the express purpose of falsifying the theory of evolution. If you want to support irreducible complexity as a falsification of the theory of evolution, don't you think you should apply the standards for falsification that you defined?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6641 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Form over substance I see... hmmmm.
SO apparently either your theory is not subject to investigation and falsification and even if the method was orioginally stated by darwin himself and it was ... we are not concerned with whether our theory is true and we don't intend to waste our time with such a silly activity. If anyone has a doubt about our theory that's their problem and they can perform the work. One would have thought that darwin would not have suggested this precise form of falsification unless he gave it full and complete acknowledgement as the principal method f of such. And I suspect that he would not have been so intimidated and frightened by IC investigations since it was his proposal of falsification as to avoid all such self directed activity. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" - darwin himself in Origin of Species.One would think the community would be most interested in the theories proven efficiacy with your claim about it guiding all scientific progress and seek constantly to insure its rightness less some error in its name result in terrible consequences. Well the D.I. with 400 top scientific people covering many discliplines I guess will be doing your homework for you in due course what with unlimited funding amd exposure, certain court changes on the horizon and all. It is sometimes best to do your own work rather than fighting all such inquirey. I suggest that their "careful and deliberate" reaxamination of the tenets of the evolutionary paradigm will involve ID, ICS and falsification. Evopeach
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Evopeach writes: Human prokarotic cell? Am I confused here, or are you claiming the humas have prokaryotic cells?
But if we remove from the human prokarotic cell the selectively semi-permeable membrane it fails catastophically, the cell is immediately non-functional and being ubiquitious the system is dead also.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6641 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Sorry eukarotic cell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Example: The "snurps" in the human cell cut out bad copies of base pair sequences single and double stranded and repair same to restore the correct sequences. Actually this isn't what Snurps (Small NUcleolar RibonucleoProteins) do. Snurps, or SnRNPs, are actually involved in the splicing of pre-mRNAs, i.e. the removal of intronic regions. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Evopeach writes: Now as to the several responses about the foolishness of following a path to its conclusion .. that is what scientists do every day .. exhaustive investigation until the hypothesis and its conclusions are increasingly confirmed by the results. Typically scientists invest their time and effort investigating their own or related hypotheses. What you want is to propose the hypothesis and then have scientists go off and assess its validity. I suggest that the IDists should be the ones working toward developing the evidence for ID. There isn't time to explore all avenues. Scientists explore the most promising hypotheses, those best supported by the evidence. To most scientists, the ID hypothesis isn't supported by any credible evidence and isn't worthy of their time. Like I said, it is usually the scientists most concerned about science education, and now that I think about it, also about the principles behind conducting good science, who give it any serious scientific attention, and they do this only to show that it still doesn't have any framework of evidence supporting it. IDists say they see design everywhere, but how is this any different from someone who says he sees God in everything in nature. The problem for IDists is to find objective evidence, which would be evidence that has some credibility outside the circle of ID believers. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Once running the SRF (sarcastic rhetoric filter), we are left with (emphasis added):
quote: Exactly: and ID via IC claims to be able to do just that. So the question becomes, where is the demonstration? ID wielding IC makes a "verbal rejoinder" with no more apparent grounds of support than incredulity...but where is the demonstration? Yes, if you want to falsify the ToE, you have to do the work, not insinuate that proponents of the ToE won't do your critical work for you because they are afraid of the outcome. Cite the studies, post the data: don't just echo the refrain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hi again:
Ok, we've solved the prokaryotic/eukaryotic mistake, so let's move on.
Evopeach writes: This does necessarily follow. Are you saying that without a cell, life does not exist and therefore the cell had to be intelligently designed? Why? First off, remember that evolutionary theory deals with life, so what came before is not addressed by the ToE.
That would constitute IC and since there is no precursor that can be demonstrated operational in the same way absent the cell membrane by microevolutionary processes. Evopeach writes: Really? Why? A cell membrane is so complex that chemistry cannot explain its existence? A phosolipid bilayer is beyond mans comprehension and therefore has to be the result of a designer? Thus the cell did not evolve and was then created by an ID. Let me ask you this: Do you believe that once a cell appeared (either by design or by natural processes), evolution may have done the rest? If so, then why do you believe that the only possible explanation for the cell is a designer? Why couldn’t processes similar to ToE also be used to explain the appearance of the first cells?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6641 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Totally Off Topic rant devoid of meaning. Please do not respond to this message. The Evo Circumlocution meter is pegged as it has been for decades. Its Darwins theory, its his idea of falsifiability name one other theory which says oh we don't have to experiment to see if this should be falsified and abandoned ... we'll just assert its true, its popular with our team, it is strictly naturalistic and very, very flexible as to adjusting to any and all possible observations, non-repeatable in most aspects and we can yell louder than most people, intimidate any calves that stray from the herd and control their career paths , publishing, degreed candidacies, etc. (see Ohio State McCartheism in full bloom ). But I sort of like the way its turning out though a long time coming. Those Microsoft early retirees ($$$$$$$$$$) and others on the DI's board and the 400 well placed scientists so affiliated .. I am please to let them carry out the work after my modest efforts in the last three decades. I just feel so confident in their abilities. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-08-2005 03:24 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6641 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Totally Off Topic rant devoid of meaning. Please do not respond to this message. The old we don't do origins around here .. after a hundred years of investigation into the origin of life in thousands of lab experiments heralded in biological journals, biology testbooks ad finitum, or ad nauseum maybe. I am pleased to have supported the team that by exposing the total, utter and complete failure of evolutionary scientists to demonstrate how the first cell ( by definition irreducibly complex because no form of life preceeded it and it was the simplest workable replicatable life viable and stable and such)came into being via the scientific method in repeatable lab conditions and that such efforts have, according to the members of this and allied forums, caused the unparalleled mass retreat of the evolutionary establishment from that unsupportable illogical position on which they have invested so much time and resource. Of course its comforting to see your ready admission that a cell absent the membrane is not viable and to jump back to that first cell. But now if other processes, unnamed, unknown, unpostulated , non-evolutionary in nature and purely imaginary are somehow responsible for the first cells creation..... is that the same as Father Raven? This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-08-2005 03:24 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I hope the argument isn't that the theory of evolution must be false because self-replicating systems are impossible without a cell membrane.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6641 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Actually if the source could be shown to be characteristics of chemistry alone in a lab experiment, repeatable and substantiated then that would falsify my hypothesis since science parsimoniously picks natural causes and rejects supernatural ones when a natural one is explanatory and demonstrable.
The real is that no one anywhere at any time has managed to demonstrate sh chemical predestination
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Actually if the source could be shown to be characteristics of chemistry alone in a lab experiment, repeatable and substantiated then that would falsify my hypothesis As I have said time and time again. It would falsify some elements of your hypothesis. However, it wouldn't falsify the idea that an Intelligent Designer was involved. As I am sure I said earlier, we basically agree on this.
science parsimoniously picks natural causes and rejects supernatural ones when a natural one is explanatory and demonstrable. Excellent, we agree on this too. An extension of this is that science assumes an unaccounted for phenomenon has a natural cause that can be explained using the methodology. Something which assumes a supernatural cause (even when a natural one is not yet known) is not science. There is no natural explanation for the bolts of power raging from the skies. It must be a powerful intelligent agent, perhaps he is called Thor or Donner. Is that science? No. Straightforward really.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6641 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
I guess the Thor example is meant to put all supernatural possibilities regardless of source and scholarship and in the absense of any scientific explanation somehow on the same plane.
That which is capable of explaining everthing that could be observed actually explains nothing with any rigour... being simply a plastic tautology. So long as every observation is greeted with some fantastic just-so story with out a single fact, no observations, no experimental evidence as being the truth, the light and the way simply because someone can imagine a way it could have been ... therefore it was that way QED.; evolution will continue to reguarded with scepticism such as that of the D.I. 400.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024