|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do we tell the difference, Ahmad? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Ahmad, I know, & I accept this, if we are defining IC as a system that fails if one component is removed. I have always accepted it, it has never been in contention. This is an extremely weak response, given I accepted IC's existence in the post 11 (among others). This is not what is being asked of you. You have asked what positive evidence was, as well as an example. You know what it is, since you have correctly used the concept. Now, please provide positive evidence that IC systems cannot evolve. If you can do this, you will be the first. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: 'Purpose' and 'function' are not the same thing. Even with a lay defintion of 'purpose' we are considering theissue of 'intent' and thereby assigning an intelligence to the design process (i.e. a designer). Because a 'system' exists which performs a function does notmean that it has 'purpose'. Behe definition (nor acceptance of it) of IC is not atissue. Most us a willing to accept that all IC means is that if you remove a component the thing is broke. We differ in that evo's can accept that IC's can develop naturallywhile creo's don't. I have suggested in the 'Irreducible Complexity' threadthat this reasoning is an argument from incredulity and nothing more. quote: Nope. Just because you break something by removing a componentdoesn't mean it was designed with a purpose, and it certainly doesn't follow that it couldn't have developed unaided. That is a connection yet to be made. The definition of design you have given (apart from making'Intelligent Design' an oxymoron) relys on 'purpose'. You still have to show that there was an 'intent' behindanything (i.e. that is WAS designed). Effectively you have said that in order for something to be designed it must be designed by someone ... which is the only real design criterion I can think of at present ... and that means we have to seek evidence of a designer. quote: Life developed by adapting to where it had to live. The universe isn't finely tuned to support life on Earth,life on Earth has adapted to exploit the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bump.....
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Peter: Life developed by adapting to where it had to live. who says?
Peter: The universe isn't finely tuned to support life on Earth, life on Earth has adapted to exploit the universe. who says?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear all,
I observed the same question in several threads and therefore I will clear this once and for all. The pivotal question to be addressed is: How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently-Designed/Irreducible Complex system and a natural one which we? PB: Designed systems can be recognised by (genetic) redundancies. Structures, cells and/or genes present in the organism/genome without selective constraint cannot be explained by evolutionism and point in the direction of design. As elaborated several times before genetic redundancies do not have an association with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies in general are sufficient to bring down evolutionism since they do not demonstrate a relationship with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies leave the evolutionary community with complete surprise and disbelief. Have a look here: (Nature - Not Found) So, remember for the next time: GENETIC REDUNDANCIES ARE CLEARCUT EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter B,
quote: Well, that would be true if you can positively rule out other explanations. Can you? Remember, this is your assertion, no "well, explain it from an evolutionary POV" arguments please. Positively back up your claim that genetic redundancies ARE evidence of design, by way of ruling out evolution, & other explanations such as perpetual existance (Well if god can have existed forever, why not life, lurking in some backwater vacuum?) Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: If you moved to the artic, would you adapt or would the environment?
quote: The universe was here some 10 billion years before the Earth showed up, give or take. And the Earth was here 1.5-2 billion years before life showed up. So what do you think is adapting to what? Is the Universe and the Earth finely tuning themselves to life-- which didn't exist during most of that fine tuning process--, or is life adapting to the universe? Its a pretty simple causal relationship. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Mark,
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PB: Designed systems can be recognised by (genetic) redundancies. Structures, cells and/or genes present in the organism/genome without selective constraint cannot be explained by evolutionism and point in the direction of design. As elaborated several times before genetic redundancies do not have an association with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies in general are sufficient to bring down evolutionism since they do not demonstrate a relationship with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies leave the evolutionary community with complete surprise and disbelief. Have a look here: (Nature - Not Found) So, remember for the next time: GENETIC REDUNDANCIES ARE CLEARCUT EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M: Well, that would be true if you can positively rule out other explanations. Can you? PB: At least, you are starting to concur that evolutionism is untenable in the light of these data. M: Remember, this is your assertion, no "well, explain it from an evolutionary POV" arguments please. Positively back up your claim that genetic redundancies ARE evidence of design, by way of ruling out evolution, & other explanations such as perpetual existance (Well if god can have existed forever, why not life, lurking in some backwater vacuum?) PB: In one of my first mails I claimed that I would bring doubt upon evolutionism and I did that. To free your mind. That was the goal. Mission accomplished.Now, let's find more evidence for the GUToB. Maybe we could discuss redundant CpG DNA in bacteria that specificly evoces an immuneresponse in higher organisms. Design, my friend. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: But you didn't. You simply stopped posting to me. I still don't know how you can tell where the hot spots were on ancient DNA from extant DNA, among other things. You claimed I wasn't vringing anything new to the argument without actually substantively responding to the criticisms/questions. Why would I bring something new? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Mark,
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PB: In one of my first mails I claimed that I would bring doubt upon evolutionism and I did that. To free your mind. That was the goal. Mission accomplished. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MP: But you didn't. PB: If so, explain to me genetic redundancies in a evolutionary way. MP: You simply stopped posting to me. PB: There was nothing new to address. MP: I still don't know how you can tell where the hot spots were on ancient DNA from extant DNA, among other things. You claimed I wasn't vringing anything new to the argument without actually substantively responding to the criticisms/questions. Why would I bring something new? PB: In the meantime --6 months or so-- I posted several examples that all demonstrate non-random mutations. If you have a careful look --like I did-- than you pick them out right away. I know that evo's are trying to explain them as mutations in common ancestors, but that vision cannot hold (see the 10 ZFY sequences Dr Page posted and my comments to it).Non-random mutations can be deduced from sequences in subpopulations. They are non-random with respect to position, and often with respect to nucleotide. As soon as we find the mechanism I can address your question concerning where exactly they are introduced in original DNA. In another thread it was already mentioned that p53 often undergoes mutations on the same spots due to a mechanism that is associated with DNA sequence. So, my assertions on non-random mutations and the involvement of a mechanism that introduces them made sense. Apparently, it is something new. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: oh... that's who said... and silly me was thinking the assertions above were merely made from presuppositions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Do you have a problem with the reasoning? If so, post it. If not, why the sarcasm? This seems an awfully shallow response, and for you, that is atypical.------------------ No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6039 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
quote: I'm not sure you want to conflate "information" and "specified complexity"; they are distinct concepts. Also, let me know which definiton of "specified complexity" you mean. Dembski has used it in several ways. Often, it means little more than the old "too complicated to happen by chance", which is an old tired argument dressed up in new clothing.
quote: Depends on your definition of "information"; but if a mutation occurs in the other copy, then by any common definition of the term there's been an increase in "information".
quote: Fascinating - you mean bacteria have always had the ability to digest nylon? Why would they have this ability when nylon is a 20th century invention? And you overlook that the mutation which produced the new nylon-digesting functionality has been identified.
quote: I DID address this question - it's a NEW, ADDITIONAL question beyond the question I was addressing - does I.C. LOGICALLY imply I.D.? Sincewe know that a a beneficial mutation is in principle possible, and that other paths other than simple addition of components are possible, we can conclude that there is no logical neccessity to conclude I.D. given I.C.
quote: No. Other than there's a "floor" to the complexity, there's no necessary direction to evolution in terms of complexity. Ahmad presents as "positive evidence" for I.D.:
quote: You can't use I.D. as evidence for I.D. It's the point of this discussion that I.C. is at it's heart an argument from Ignorance (lack of a natural explanation for a system). The Anthropic Principle, even if valid, in no way explains the "design" of organisms. The Cambrian Explosion was a multi-million year event preceded by hundreds of millions of years of fossil life (most of it unicellular, some of it multicellular). And, once it again, it does nothing to "explain" apparent design. I suspect you think it disproves evolution, but again, that is not positive evidence for I.D.
quote: Yes, Schraf agrees. What other atheists think might be interesting, but is irrelevant to this discussion, since neither I nor Schraf disagree with your argument here. You don't argue that it *doesn't* apply to I.D., I notice. And no, it does not make "I.D." falsifiable, in the sense of allowing evidence to count against it. Rather, it is a flaw in the reasoning of I.D. (And yes, I'm dropping the blood-clotting stuff for now, simply because I don't have the kind of time right now necessary for a properly in-depth discussion. )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: sorry... it's just that rarely have i been allowed to get away with making statements like these,
Originally posted by Peter: Life developed by adapting to where it had to live. The universe isn't finely tuned to support life on Earth, life on Earth has adapted to exploit the universe. without someone coming along and accusing me of making bald assertions... it occured to me that peter had made a couple of assertions with, as far as i could tell, only his opinion to back them up... what if i change them, what if i stated as a truth claim (as he did): God finely tuned the universe so that life would be possible on earth. God created life on earth after having molded earth in such a way as to support that life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Peter didn't elaborate on the statements, though I am sure he could. I did attempt to explain the reasoning and met with sarcasm in return. So, do you have a problem with the reasoning?
quote: The difference between your statements and Peter's is that you postulate a driving force for which we have no evidence. Peter's statements are within the bounds of what we know. Sorry, got to go. Mommie is rushing me ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024