|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do we tell the difference, Ahmad? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Hi schraf,
quote: Good question. Before proceeding, it's very important to be clear just what I mean by "design": The imposition of structure upon some object or collection of objects for some purpose, where the structure and the purpose are not inherent in the properties of the components but make use of these properties. So anything that is "designed" indicates "purpose"... a "function". Here's where IC takes the toll.. I prefer Behe's definition: "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." So anything that is irreducibly complex is intelligently designed and denotes purpose and indicates the existence of an "Intelligent Designer". But ID can be identified by other means also. One major area of such identification would be (although off-topic), the cosmological anthropic principle: why are the constants of the universe so finely tuned to support life on this planet? Is it reasonable to suppose that this is the result either of chance or of some as yet unknown natural law? Don't mind me giving these explanations.. you may very well be aware of them or know more about them than me... but am just clarifying my position before beginning this discussion Now regarding your (1) point, the thing is we understand the system fully. That is exactly why we are saying that its irreducibly complex. We know that the system X needs components A,B,C,D to effectively function such as the removal of even one component ceases the function of the entire system. Regarding your (2) point which is completely unpredictable. You're saying that we, at the present time, don't possess the intelligence to understand such systems. You may be right.. who knows, may be in the future we can understand the system better and draw out the evolutionary pathways. But using your own logic, it is also possible for the opposite to be true. We don't know. Anything is possible. But this is irrelevant to the present argument. We can make good predictions... but for the moment let us rely on the evidence at hand. One more thing... your (2) is quite noteworthy at the same time since it proves that ID/IC is a "scientific theory" which carries the potential to be falsified.
quote: I understand what you're trying to say. For the record, I trust only a very few websites. It's sort of my fault because at that time I was carried away. I will try not repeating it in the future. To err is man. And I do agree with you. There are some extremely biased creationist websites which quote such "out-of-context" quotes and mislead people. But you can't deny the existence of certain evolutionist websites that do that too. The former practising it more.. I have to say. But anyways.. this won't happen in the future Insha Allah.
quote: For the record, I don't remember what site I got it from. I'll look for it. But do you really think they will change once I inform them. I really do doubt that. The thing is.. I got so mad I removed the site from my favorites. But if you really want.. I can look for it again (which I really don't want to). I recommend we continue our dialog about ID/IC instead of picking what happens to be my mistake. Its irrelevant at this moment. I am quite sure we can build a constructive discussion about the current topic you had on mind since you started the thread. I suggest keeping that active Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
quote: I really don't think Natural Selection designs anything. Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs [macroevolution](Noble, et al., Parasitology, sixth edition, "Evolution of Parasitism," Lea and Febiger, 1989, p. 516). In other words, it's a principle of local adaptation.. it does not add any new information to the genome. Same goes for variation which are nothing but the outcomes of different combinations of the already existing genetic information and they do not add any new characteristic to the genetic information. I don't see how it can design anything.
quote: You're probably asking the same question as mark. Notice the definition. ALL components need to be present for the system to effectively function. Systems (IF) evolving by natural selection or random mutation.. are not IC.
quote: Excellent analogy. Ofcourse, IC completely breaks down the linear darwinian evolution (change along a single axis), the analogy you put up is known as Elimination of Functional Redundancy sort-of. Now this analogy ,however, involves some sleight of hand. Originally you proposed ABCD as a non-IC. So that means if one of the components from ABCD goes off, the system will continue to function. Surprisingly, what you did is added up a component E (all out of the blue) and the system continues to perform its original function. Now this may sound very casual in such analogies, but are highly improbable in real life. From where exactly and how does component E come here? Thats the main question. Even if this component E comes, all out of the blue, what are the chances that this will contribute to the system's function. The base of your analogy fails here. If you would just change your analogy to like... the components ABCD needs system X to function and the system is not IC. One of the components disappears, say C, disappears but the system maintains its function. But now its irreducibly complex. But even this analogy seems to be highly unlikely, I'm afraid, to explain the evolution of IC systems. You can check my responses to Primordial egg, on the same forum ID, "how do we know its irreducible" thread, for details.
quote: I would have second thoughts to the veracity of that explanation taking in account the just-perfect universe, the "design" in nature, the excellent coordination in IC/ID systems. It just fills me with awe and wonder...
quote: The latter seems to be more plausible to me
quote: You're probably asking the same question as Eugenie scott did. She had an excellent response from Dembski here. I think Dembski sums it perfectly with an analogy: "What about the positive evidence for intelligent design? It seems that here we may be getting to the heart of Eugenie Scott’s concerns. I submit that there is indeed positive evidence for intelligent design. To see this, let’s consider an example that I recycle endlessly in my writings (if only because its force seems continually lost on Darwinists). Consider the movie Contact that appeared summer of 1997, based on the novel by Carl Sagan. In the movie radio astronomers determine that they have established contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence after they receive a long sequence of prime numbers, represented as a sequence of bits. Although in the actual SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio astronomers look not for something as flamboyant as prime numbers but something much more plebeian, namely, a narrow bandwidth of transmissions (as occur with human radio transmissions), the point nonetheless remains that SETI researchers would legitimately count a sequence of prime numbers (and less flamboyantly though just as assuredly a narrow bandwidth transmission) as positive evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. No such conclusive signal has yet been observed, but I can assure you that if it were to be observed, Eugenie Scott would not be complaining about SETI not having proposed any testable models. Instead she would rejoice that the model had been tested and decisively confirmed. Now what’s significant about a sequence of prime numbers from outer space is that they exhibit specified complexity--there has to be a long sequence (hence complexity) and it needs to display an independently given pattern (hence specificity). But what if specified complexity is also exhibited in actual biological systems? In fact it is--notably in the bacterial flagellum. Internet mavens have been pestering me for actual calculations of complexity involved in such systems. I address this in my forthcoming book (No Free Lunch), but such calculations are out there in the literature (cf. the work of Hubert Yockey, Robert Sauer, Peter Rst, Paul Erbrich, Siegfried Scherer, and most recently Douglas Axe--I’m not enlisting these individuals as design advocates but merely pointing out that methods for determining specified complexity are already part of biology). Even so, it appears that Eugenie Scott would not be entirely happy admitting that intelligent design is positively confirmed once some clear-cut instances of specified complexity are discovered in biological systems. Why not? As she put it in her U.C. Berkeley lecture, design theorists never tell you what happened. Well, neither do SETI researchers. If a SETI researcher discovers a radio transmission of prime numbers from outer space, the inference to an extraterrestrial intelligence is clear, but the researcher doesn’t know what happened in the sense of knowing any details about the radio transmitter or for that matter the extraterrestrial that transmitted the radio transmission. Ah, but we have experience with radio transmitters. At least with extraterrestrial intelligences we can guess what might have happened. But we don’t have any experience with unembodied designers, and that’s clearly what we’re dealing with when it comes to design in biology. Actually, if an unembodied designer is responsible for biological complexity, then we do have quite a bit of experience with such a designer through the designed objects (not least ourselves) that confront us all the time. On the other hand, it is true that we possess very little insight at this time into how such a designer acted to bring about the complex biological systems that have emerged over the course of natural history. Darwinists take this present lack of insight into the workings of an unembodied designer not as remediable ignorance on our part and not as evidence that the designer’s capacities far outstrip ours, but as proof that there is no unembodied designer (at least none relevant to biology). By the same token, if an extraterrestrial intelligence communicated via radio signals with earth and solved computational problems that exceeded anything an ordinary or quantum computer could ever solve, we would have to conclude that we weren’t really dealing with an intelligence because we have no experience of super-mathematicians that can solve such problems. My own view is that with respect to biological design humans are in the same position as William James’s dog studying James while James was reading a book in his library. Our incomprehension over biological design is the incomprehension of a dog trying to understand its master’s actions. Interestingly, the biological community regularly sings the praises of natural selection and the wonders it has wrought while admitting that it has no comprehension of how those wonders were wrought. Natural selection, we are assured, is cleverer than we are or can ever hope to be. Darwinists have merely swapped one form of awe for another. They’ve not eliminated it. It is no objection at all that we don’t at this time know how an unembodied designer produced a biological system that exhibits specified complexity. We know that specified complexity is reliably correlated with the effects of intelligence. The only reason to insist on looking for non-telic explanations to explain the complex specified structures in biology is because of prior commitment to naturalism that perforce excludes unembodied designers. It is illegitimate, scientifically and rationally, to claim on a priori grounds that such entities do not exist, or if they do exist that they can have no conceivable relevance to what happens in the world. Do such entities exist? Can they have empirical consequences? Are they relevant to what happens in the world? Such questions cannot be prejudged except on metaphysical grounds. To prejudge these questions the way Eugenie Scott does is therefore to make certain metaphysical commitments about what there is and what has the capacity to influence events in the world. Such commitments are utterly gratuitous to the practice of science. Specified complexity confirms design regardless whether the designer responsible for it is embodied or unembodied."
quote: Oh but we do have the explanation. We know how the system works and functions, we know the role of the components in the system, and thus we come to the conclusion that the system is IC. That explanation, though not complete, is sufficient to indicate problems with postulating completely naturalistic explanations. Ratzsch, a philosopher, points out that "God-of-the-Gaps" is a pejorativelabel that arbitrarily refuses in principle to recognise that there may be gaps in the fabric of natural causation: "Appeals to divine intelligent activity are often pejorativelylabeled `God of the gaps-explanation'....But such objections do not seem compelling. If there are no gaps in the fabric of natural causation, then obviously appeal to divine activity will get us off track. On the other hand, if there are such gaps, refusing on principle to recognize them within science will equally get us off track. We should perhaps be wary of both ways of going wrong. If in our intellectual endeavors we are attempting to get at truth as best we can, then if we have rational reason-from whatever source-to believe that God has taken a hand in the origin or ongoing operation of the cosmos, arbitrarily excluding that belief needs some justification." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Ill., 1996, pp193-194). quote: What "natural means" do you postulate for the evolution of IC systems? Go here nad tell me how many "naturalistic explanations" sound familiar.
quote: IC systems are open for all kinds of research. Just because we say the system is intelligently designed (since it's IC) does not close the room for further research. No way.. no how. And what exactly is the "evolutionary pathway" discovered recently for blooding clotting cascade?
quote: Now when did I say that? All I am saying is that anything is possible...
quote: Hey.. if evolutionists can't explain how IC systems evolved, why are we supposed to be blamed for that? We know the system is unevolvable in our present knowledge. If pathways are discovered, then we can deal with them. As far as I know, no valid evolutionary pathway has yet been discovered for any IC system. And exactly how and in what basis do you make such a prediction? Using your own logic, If an atheist says God doesn't exist because we have no evidence for His existence, I can call his claim a "claim of the gaps" or if he bases an argument, an "argument from incredulity". After all, who knows, we might stumble on some evidence, in the future, that proves His existence beyond the shadow of a doubt. Ofcourse, then my atheist brethren will accuse me of tossing pascal's wager, now won't they?
quote: No it isn't. ID/IC is fully scientific and eligible to be called a "theory" just as evolution. We have positive evidence for them (IC). "Absence of evolutionary pathways" is irrelevant since evolution, itself, is a theory.
quote: Incorrect. If we conclude, from research, that a system is IC (therefore ID), it does not close the room for further thoughts and research. We can, then, utilize the research to find out the system's counter-parts... whether the system can work with other components or even evolutionists are free to explore the nature of the system and draw their conclusions. How does it establish an "end-point"? How does it violate the principle of tentativity?
quote: Ah... thanks for the advice. Point noted Regards,Ahmad [This message has been edited by Ahmad, 12-03-2002] [This message has been edited by Ahmad, 12-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Hi Zhimbo,
quote: OK, but the quote is just what I wanted to say. Natural Selection "selects".. it does not "design" anything.
quote: They are not new, in the sense, that there is no increase in the specified complexity of the organism. Mutation may produce "new" traits but at the expense of information loss. It does not create "new" information, thus zero net increase in the specified complexity. Gene duplication would have been a good case, if it indeed took place. If it did take place, then there should be evidence of numerous old duplicated-but-unused genes all over the genome. "Junk DNA" failed the test since they have been rendered as an essential constituent of cell division. Even if gene duplication did take place, how does it add "new" information? Do you have "new" information if you make two copies of the same newpaper? No! Its virtually the "same" information as the previous.
quote: I have read about this in an article from a journal, but I can't seem to find it. I do remember what the article said. The ability of bacteria to digest nylon is due to a plasmid. This suggests that the information probably already existed, and was just passed between different types of bacteria. All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity (aka loss of information) in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. There is no "information" gain here but information loss that causes this.
quote: This is in exact concordance with science. This shows that ID, like all other scientific theories, is falsifiable, as well as verifiable.
quote: Yes, IC implies ID. If you deny that, there's an awful magnitude of naturalistic coincidences that you have to have faith on.
quote: You are right in pointing out that Behe is a theistic evolutionist and has no problem with common descent. However, my previous question (that you did not paste) is important. What is the probability that this "additional" component will contribute to the system's function such that one of the previous components of the system becoming redundant will fall of and the system together with the additional component will become irreducibly complex? Perhaps, this gives rise to a whole set of new questions. To begin with, how does this explain the "origin" and the "evolution" of irreducibly complex systems if systems, like the one outlined by schraf, were already in a "complex" state?? Isn't the proposed evolutionary trend supposed to be simple to complex?
quote: With all due respect, I have not. IC argument still stands and I did not go off-topic. Give me evolutionary pathways, if they exist. You did not do that but just supposedly predicted the "aftermath" once evolutionary pathways have been proposed. And I must argue the "specific details" of the veracity evolutionary pathways you are proposing since it is in the details that this supposed evolutionary pathway breaks down. The main IC argument is directly linked with it.
quote: Yes I agree. However, I must question the various predictions of the pathway and how it confers to the "evolution" of IC systems.
quote: Oh that wasn't an argument, just my personal conviction. Make an exception for that, if you're looking for "positive evidence". The positive evidence for creation (at the top of my mind) would be Intelligent Design in nature, Irreducible Complexity in systems, Anthropic Principle and cambrian explosion.
quote: Yes, it is quite different from IC but since you're responding on behalf on schraf, it makes a good answer to his question, "What is the positive evidence for ID?".
quote: Gee, why do you make "Godidit" sound so dogmatic and unrealistic? In my opinion, those claiming non-evolvability of IC systems via natural causes believed in a Creator, they would look more seriously at how it actually works instead of disparaging what in reality no one really understands. Dembski discussed this point in his paper recently: ‘But design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term junk. Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as junk merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development. Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.’
quote: No it isn't. Real explanations are encouraged by the apparent design in nature that apparently points to an intelligent designer. For example, if SETI detects a streaming set of intelligent codes being signalled from outer space, it would point to the existence of an "intelligent sender". Do you really think SETI will just say "aliensdidit" and close the entire topic? Ofcourse not! Investigations, crytopgraphy, decoders, detecting patterns, functions of the specific codes, denotions etc will all put into full use in full force to crack the meaning of the code, for surely they know that it for some "purpose". Same goes for intelligent design. If we admit intelligent design into science, it will foster and open the doors for a whole range of inquiry and investigations unlike evolution which sets a full-stop once they find something "appearing" non-functional and vestigial.
quote: I see Dr. Doolittle changing tracks here. Last time I heard, he claimed that mice went along fine with the elimination of to components of the blood-clotting cascades (which Behe refuted). Lets see the fate of this article..
quote: The only interesting commment, in my opinion, is the paraphrase of Dr. Orr but Coon, "Darwinian evolution can easily produce irreducible complexity: all that's required is that parts that were once just favorable become, because of later changes, essential." This is called "Original Helping Activity" (OHA) and Gene nicely points out how this explanation is "fatally flawed".
quote: Behe's response, In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller, and Keith Robison.
quote: You may agree with it, but does the majority? Lets do a poll, how many atheists out there agrees with you? Does schraf agree? Even if everyone agrees with this notion, does it not entitle ID to be science, that is capable of falsifiability? It sure does, in my opinion
quote: Who says so? ID fosters inquiry, as Dembski points out. The SETI analogy, I gave you earlier, perfectly implies this notion. And besides, just as naturalistic evolutionists tells you NOT to "allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Levontin), what difference do you expect to find with your notion of ID? Ofcourse, ID is both for creationists as well as evolutionists, even though they don't accept it.
quote: Irrelevant. I am pointing out that ID is not an obstacle to science but it can enhance and foster scientific progress where evolution puts a full-stop. But if you insist, design in living organisms is something that was generated from ID. Design denotes purpose and everything that exists, has a purpose. Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
quote: I really don't understand why you're on denial whilst I gave you what was in my capacity. I have given you evidence, in the form of examples (flagella), and explained in detail (with the GIF image) how all the components are needed for it to function. That, as I see it, is unevolvable by the darwinian evolution. If you disagree, then I would ask you to provide YOUR evidence. But since, you constantly say I made the claim of the unevolvability of IC and you didn't do nothing, I gave the evidence that I think is more than enough.
quote: Since I don't understand your definition of positive evidence, I would like you to give me a positive evidence for evolution. That won't be part of the discussion ofcourse, but just so that I can get a glimpse of what exactly is the kind of positive evidence you're talking about.
quote: The positive evidence I provided previously is TESTABLE. The conclusion that a system is IC depends on its very definition. Evidence are in the examples provided. If a valid evolutionary pathway can be shown to have existed in the aforementioned IC systems, then you win. Just as darwin provided the criteria for his theory to be falsified, IC also has the criterias for it to be falsified. It's a hypothesis. Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
quote: Positive evidence for IC is seen in the bacterial flagella, where all the components of the flagella are needed to make it perform its function, i.e, locomotion of the bacteria and it appears at the exact place where it is needed by the bacteria. Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
John,
quote: Right, so a car is not irreducible, now is it? The phenomenon you are point out is "Adoption from a different function". Now let me see if I get this right. A car is designed for its set purpose by an engineer. He consciously places the different components in their proper place to make a car. There is a teleological intervention.. and not a naturalistic phenomenon as naturalistic evolution. I am discussing IC in terms of non-teleological perspective aka naturalistic evolution... how it could account for the different components and piece them out together, increasing specified complexity and making the resulting structure, irreducible in function. Ofcourse, unless you can show me a fully functional car made by nature herself, my claim STANDS! Regards,Ahmad [This message has been edited by Ahmad, 12-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
quote: Thats a pretty big IF. Tell you what.. give me a valid proven demonstrable evolutionary pathway for, say, bacterial flagella and you might have some credit for your argument. All I have been given are imaginary pathways either based on homology or just sheer possibility. Imagination is good, but only on the boundaries of fantasy. In science, we deal with reality. Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Mark,
quote: My bad! I should have said: Positive evidence for the non-evolvability of IC is seen in the bacterial flagella, where all the components of the flagella are needed to make it perform its function, i.e, locomotion of the bacteria and it appears at the exact place where it is needed by the bacteria. Regards,Ahmad [This message has been edited by Ahmad, 12-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Peter,
quote: To an extent, it is. Anything that functions... functions for a certain purpose.
quote: It is not a new suggestion. Many critics have already made similar suggestions and accusations. However, I disagree. "Incredulity" primarily indicates "disbelief". The "faith" element is not in question here. What is in question is the "evidence" to show that irreducibly complex molecular machines was or could have been made by naturalistic processes. Imaginary pathways are no good.
quote: The connection is evident. If a system is IC, then it must have had all its parts from the very moment of its existence, i.e, it was specially created. That means all the components were functionally designed to coordinate and perform the function of the system.
quote: "Intent" is "Purpose". If something is "irreducible", it must have been "designed" for a purpose. And what else criterions of "design" do you postulate?
quote: Thats how life developed. How did it originate?
quote: So now the Anthropic Principle gets wrong? Whats next? The second Law of thermodynamics? Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Mark,
quote: quote: Right.. lets get back to your original example of "positive evidence" and do some comparing. You gave an example of birds evolving from dinosaurs and its fossil record as "positive evidence" for evolution. I gave you an example of the flagella present in bacteria as Irreducible and hence.. un-evolvable. If this is an argument from incredulity, then so is your "positive evidence". Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Mark,
quote: A bacterial flagella has traits classifiable to an Irreducibly complex system and is positive evidence for it's non-evolvability by darwinian mechanisms. The evidence is testable and falsifiable.
quote: I call that "tossing". You were always on the contention that IC systems exist and they have evolved by darwinian mechanisms, and you have also cited some papers backing up your initial claim (to which you now seem to deny). I did make claims to which I have several times verified. Darwinian mechanisms cannot account for the origin of IC systems. Consider A -->B -->C... where, there is a trend of increasing complexity (alleged evolutionary preduction). 'A' evolves into 'B' much more complex compared to 'A'. The 'B' evolved into 'C', the latter once again being more complex than former. So there was a gradual increase in the complexity of ABC system. C must have more number of parts than A or B. Now lets get to my point. In IC, we are dealing with a system in which ALL the parts are required for it to function such that if one part is taken away, the entire system ceases to function. Hence we make a prediction (quite common for evolutionists) based on facts, that the system must have had existed with ALL its parts from the very moment of its existence. The gradual increase in complexity is out of the question as the system is irreducible complex. It has no predecessors. It is common sense. Darwinian mechanism cannot account for such a system since it predicts "evolution" from simple to complex for everything. Darwin himself was scared of it. As for petitio principii, I am not begging the question but the answer. Explain to me HOW IC systems could evolve?? Hitherto, you been consistently reiterating about "positive evidence for its non-evolvability" and I have. You just don't accept it. Now I ask: Provide "positive, testable, valid" evidence for the evolvability of IC, not just some drawn out of imagination. After all, something must at least have some chances of possibility before we can rule it out as "impossible". Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
quote: quote: If it can be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes to create irreducibly complex systems when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam’s razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.
quote: Once again.. you're on denial. Don't tell me its not your contention that IC systems have "evolved". Why then would you provide papers by thornhill and ussery showing the various imaginary darwinian pathways? I can support my contention and I did. You just don't accept it. You just want me to do the talking. You never provided any evidence for your latent claim of the evolvability of IC systems. I believe the burden of proof is now on you.
quote: This is the line of reasoning I follow: 1. Bacterial flagella is an IC system2. These systems are unexplainable (I haven't had a single valid explanation for the evolution of IC systems) by evolution. 3. Therefore IC systems are unevolvable. Besides, using your own logic, I can say that the "dinobird" argument is flawed too. Your premises are that fossil record has organisms with traits of both birds and dinos. Your conclusion is the birds evolved from dinos. I say thats one "classic" case, too, of question-begging. Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Zhimbo,
quote: So darwinian evolution, on one hand, haven't a clue how systems like the bacterial flagellum might have evolved. On the other hand, we know that intelligence is capable of designing high-tech systems like this. Yet it is us who are guilty of arguing from ignorance and the Darwinists like you who know what really happened. Who do you think you're kidding with? Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Mark,
quote: I don't understand your question. As I see it, you have bacterial flagella that is IC and it can't evolve, given the darwinian evolution as the evolver.
quote: The mammalian ear is at the phenotypical level, thus at this level alone it isirrelevant to the irreducible complexity of molecular machines. Also, the mammalian inner ear is not irreducibly complex. Thus showing a pathway to this system is doubly irrelevant. quote: You are entitled to your views and it's expression. Playing devil's advocate won't really do you any good, now will it? You have a mindset. No matter how much evidence I give you, it seems as though, you'll never accept it. It's better to do the research yourself. As regards to frustration... I really am not frustrated. I try to make it a learning experience.
quote: You're most welcome to do so. But in actuality, you were the one referring me to that article and you claimed to have read the actual article from some site you gave me. I linked you to good "response" to that paper.
quote: You don't understand the argument I raised. In order to declare something as impossible and provide positive evidence for it's impossibility, the known possibilities of that "something" to be possible must be dealt with first. In order to declare the evolvability of IC as impossible and to satisfy your contention by providing positive evidence for it's impossibility, you should at least provide me some chances (pathways) of it's possibility. I really don't see how it can evolve. All the data of the bacterial flagella is so highly unlikely (irreducibly complex) to coincide with the darwinian evolution. And this very specified complexity, shows the sign of an intelligent design.
quote: That's a misconception. Dembski explains it better in response to Pigliucci on a similar accusation of argumentum ad ignorantium. The theory of "specified complexity" acts as the Occam's razor and slices this accusation to pieces. For instance, the long sequence of numbers obtained, on the movie Contact (Carl Sagan), was not just complex but also exhibited an independently given pattern or specification (it was not just any old sequence of numbers but a mathematically significant one -- the prime numbers). Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or signature -- what maybe called "specified complexity." An event exhibits specified complexity if it is contingent and therefore not necessary; if it is complex and therefore not easily repeatable by chance; and if it is specified in the sense of exhibiting an independently given pattern. Note that complexity in the sense of improbability is not sufficient to eliminate chance: flip a coin long enough, and you'll witness a highly complex or improbable event. Even so, you'll have no reason not to attribute it to chance. The important thing about specifications is that they be objectively given and not just imposed on events after the fact. For instance, if an archer shoots arrows into a wall and we then paint bull's-eyes around them, we impose a pattern after the fact. On the other hand, if the targets are set up in advance ("specified") and then the archer hits them accurately, we know it was by design. In applying the test of specified complexity to biological organisms, design theorists focus on identifiable systems -- such as individual enzymes, molecular machines, and the like -- that exhibit a clear function and for which complexity can be reasonably assessed. Of course, once specified complexity is exhibited by some part of an organism, then any design attributable to that part carries over to the whole organism. It is not necessary to demonstrate that every aspect of the whole organism is the result of design. Some aspects may be the result of chance or necessity. Also see my response to Zhimbo regarding this issue. We, IDists, know how irreducibly complex molecular machines like the bacterial flagella, work and the function of each and every one of it's components that make it work. We can conclude that it is a product of Intelligent design because it has that sort of specified complexity as in the "sequence numbers" obtained. While darwinists, like you, don't have a clue as to how it "evolved" and still gasping at straws by putting imaginary pathways if the alleged "real" demonstrable does not exist. So who's really arguing from ignorance?
quote: So what is your point when you say that "the fossil record has examples of organisms that possess traits of both reptiles & birds,"? What are the alternative conclusions drawn from it?
quote: And I am still waiting for it's lightest shred of possibility. Regards,Ahmad
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024