|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Study of Intelligent Design Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"ROTFLMAO
Did " Behe forget to do some reading?"--Don't start the belly laugh yet, this sounds conceivable, but can it be applied? Take the Girraffe for instance as I stated before, it would be a time bomb ready to explode itself if it did not have the mechenisms it has today, I quote from an AiG Article with some comments of my own: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/555.asp>--===============--< quote: ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
For one, I thought Human Cytochrome C was closest to a sunflowers? Second, what is a reference to how human and chimp cytochrome C is identical?
------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: LMAO!!!!!!!! Kent Hovind is a tosser, & I seriously suggest you STOP reading & quoting him. Here are the actual amino acid sequences of chimps, humans & sunflowers.
http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/HovindLie.html Sunflower: asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaanknmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst a Human: mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiwgedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne Common Chimpanzee: mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiwgedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne List of Amino Acids and Their Abbreviations. (Added by edit). glycine Gly Galanine Ala A valine Val V leucine Leu L isoleucine Ile I methionine Met M phenylalanine Phe F tryptophan Trp W proline Pro P serine Ser S threonine Thr T cysteine Cys C tyrosine Tyr Y asparagine Asn N glutamine Gln Q aspartic acid Asp D glutamic acid Glu E lysine Lys K arginine Arg R histidine His H Humans & chimps are identical, humans & sunflowers VERY different. So, Why does a chimp have "human" cytochrome c, when it could function just as well with a slugs cytochrome c? Please explain why a molecule differs with distance, in relation to morphological phylogenies, when it has no relation to those phylogenies, if it isn't a product of common descent with modification? Mark [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-04-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-04-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Barbarian Member (Idle past 6259 days) Posts: 31 From: Dallas, TX US Joined: |
The giraffe is a mammal, therefore much of its anatomy is similar to that of other mammals. Like most other mammals, the giraffe has seven neck bones. What if it did not have seven bones between the shoulders and the base of the skull? Man's short neck supports a perfectly balanced head in the erect posture with very little effort. The giraffe's huge head must be held aloft at all times.
No. It can lower it's head when it has a mind to. When standing, nearly half of its approximately 225-kilogram (500 pound) neck muscles are in tension. The amount of muscle required is directly related to the number of joints that must be supported. No. It's directly related to the mass of the neck and head, adjusted for the distribution of the mass from the proximal end of the neck. The number of joints is not a constraint. However if giraffes evolved from smaller mammals, changing the number of neck vertebrae would be a major change, and difficult evolutionarily. We would expect this to remain the same, and it does. Reducing the joints to just two, at the skull and at the chest, would reduce the weight considerably and require less energy for survival. Nope. the weight would not be greatly affected, but flexibility woud suffer greatly. If the shortage of food drove the neck to change, would not the number of neck bones and joints be changeable also by such evolutionary processes? Of course the problem with this design would be a loss of flexibility, and would severely increase breakability if the giraffe received a blow to the head or neck. Yes. Which is why we see an evolutionary solution, not a redesign. In the same respect, having a megajointed neck would require the exact opposite - greater energy use and greater muscle mass to be supported. No. That's wrong. This would cause the giraffe's centre of gravity to shift ahead of the front legs when the head is extended straight forward, causing the hind legs to come off the ground - assuming the front legs were strong enough. Seven neck bones is excellent design. It also happens to be the same number as the animals from which giraffes evolved. How about that? With the head being so high in the air, the huge heart of the giraffe must be capable of delivering sufficient oxygen-rich blood three metres (10 feet) up to the brain. This would be a problem (involving too high blood pressure) when the giraffe was head-down drinking water, were it not for a unique collection of reinforced artery walls, by-pass and antipooling valves, a web of small blood vessels (the rete mirabile, or 'marvellous net') and pressure-sensing signals that keep adequate blood flow to the brain at just the right pressure. Even to those who consider this as just 'adaptation to high gravitational pressures in its cardiovascular system', the giraffe is unique. No, it's not unique. Many mammals have a rete, and the valves are found in all mammals as well. They are just more robust in giraffes, which is to be expected. The giraffe's heart is probably the most powerful among animals, because about double normal pressure is required to pump blood up the giraffe's long neck to the brain. Equally marvellous is the fact the blood does not pool in the legs, and a giraffe does not bleed profusely if cut on the leg. The secret lies in an extremely tough skin and an inner fascia that prevents blood pooling. This skin combination has been studied extensively by NASA scientists in their development of gravity-suits for astronauts. No kidding? Got a checkable source for that? You see, those valves are found in the legs, too. You have them also, but again, not as robust.It quickly becomes apparent that these unique facets of the giraffe are all interactive and interdependent with its long neck. Yep, as giraffes gradually got bigger (we have plenty of intermediate ones in the fossil record) they adapted to larger size. But there's more. The smaller red blood cells allow for more surface area and a higher and faster absorption of oxygen into the blood. This helps to retain adequate oxygen to all extremities, including the head. The lungs work in conjunction with the heart to supply the giraffe with the necessary oxygen, but in a way that is unique to the giraffe. The giraffe's lungs are eight times the size of those of humans, and its respiratory rate is about one-third that of humans. Breathing more slowly is necessary in order to exchange the required large volume of air without causing windburn to the giraffe's rippled 3.6 metres (12 feet) of trachea. When the animal takes in a fresh breath, the oxygen-depleted previous breath cannot be totally expelled. For the giraffe this problem is compounded by the long trachea that will retain more dead air than man can inhale in one breath. There must be enough lung volume to make this 'bad air' a small percentage of the total. This is a physics problem that the giraffe has solved. The giraffe has larger lungs because of its greater size. Because the tidal volume is so great, it was possible to evolve a long neck. If evolutionary theory is correct, smaller giraffes should have relatively shorter necks. They do. Ecologically, the giraffe is perfectly matched to its environment. See Darwin to find out why. There is need of a tree trimmer to keep the fast-growing shade trees from overshadowing the ground and killing the much needed grass that provides food for the other savanna animals. The trees on the savannah are sparse, and relatively small compared to open grassland. Shade is actually good for grass in that sunny environment. And giraffes generally do not feed on trees, but on lower vegetation. To suggest that all of this could have evolved in one class of animal, Do you know what a "class" is? lacking any conceivable close relatives, Wrong again. There are numerous fossil giraffes, and at least two living giraffoids, the pronghorn antelope and the okapi. The lengths of their necks is what one would expect, based on their size. Allometry shows that larger giraffes have relatively longer necks. and becoming so developed solely due to a supposed lack of food at ground level, is preposterous. Sure is. But that's not why the long neck evolved. The reason others didn't copy the giraffe is because that niche was already occupied. So other species found other niches, or became extinct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"conducting research under a Biblical framework" presupposes scripture validity, & isn't science." --I thought you wanted to know what a biblical 'kind' was?[/QUOTE] No, I wanted to know how Creationists defined the word "kind" when they attempt to use it in a scientific sense. I don't care how people use words in a Biblical or theological sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"ROTFLMAO Did " Behe forget to do some reading?"--Don't start the belly laugh yet, this sounds conceivable, but can it be applied?[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter if it can be applied! The whole point is that Behe and ID proponents say that it is impossible that these systems could have arisen naturally. It has ben demonstrated that it is, indeed, possible to produce these systems naturally, so the argument that it is impossible is rendered false. When you say "...but can it be applied?" you are moving the bar and are now arguing something different that you were before. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-04-2002] [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-04-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation: [b]"ROTFLMAO Did " Behe forget to do some reading?"--Don't start the belly laugh yet, this sounds conceivable, but can it be applied?[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter if it can be applied! The whole point is that Behe and ID proponents say that it is impossible that these systems could have arisen naturally. It has ben demonstrated that it is, indeed, possible to produce these systems naturally, so the argument that it is impossible is rendered false. [/B][/QUOTE] John Paul:Nothing has been demonstrated that would falsify IC. If you think it has please refer us to the peer-reviewed journal and article. The best I have seen is Miller's write-up on blood-clotting, but that wasn't peer-reviewed. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Thats kind of the point bud given that evolution accounts for IC (and has done since 1939) we don`t need to falsify IC, in fact we expect to see it as the result of evolution which makes Behe`s assertions even more amusing, he claims something that has been predicted by evolution for the last 60 or so years is a falsification of evolution. From
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.6/orr.html "I wish I could claim credit for this Darwinian model of irreducible complexity, but I'm afraid I've been scooped by eighty years. This scenario was first hinted at by the geneticist H. J. Muller in 1918 and worked out in some detail in 1939 Indeed, Muller gives reasons for thinking that genes which at first improved function will routinely become essential parts of a pathway. So the gradual evolution of irreducibly complex systems is not only possible, it's expected. For those who aren't biologists, let me assure you that I haven't dug up the half-baked lucubrations of some obscure amateur. Muller, awarded the Nobel Prize in 1946, was a giant in evolution and genetics." [This message has been edited by joz, 02-04-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
To put it bluntly the work that refutes Behe`s arguments centered on IC for a designer was published about 60 years before Darwins black box by a nobel prize winner.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: John Paul:This appears more like a hypothesis than anything. I hope there is labwork in the book that bears out this hypothesis. If not it is just more 'wishful' thinking than anything. Is something demonstrated in the book? The book came out before the double-helix was discovered so I doubt it gets into detail- the detail Behe says is missing to begin with. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Like the labwork that PROVES Behes irreducible complexity could not be arrived at by evolution? Sounds like a hypothesis to me. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-04-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Agreed Mark he is a tosser, but for the americans out there who don`t know what a tosser is it is the vernacular for masturbator.... P.S he is also a git......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1499 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I'm new to this discussion, but have read with
some interest the previous postings. It appears to me (and please explain if I have missed something)that your assertion that Intelligent Design MUST be the case is an inference based upon absence of evidence to the contrary. I'm not convinced that the absence of evidence is a sound foundationfor infering anything in any subject area. Is there something very specific that you could put forward thatevolutionary theory cannot be used to explain ? I have seen many references to drifting off into fantasy inrelation to evolutionary explanations, but no reasoned arguments against the possible explanations put forward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1896 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
The coffin door creeps toward being shut completely on poor Mikey Behe's 'hypothesis'...
http://bio.com/newsfeatures/newsfeatures_research.jhtml;jsessionid=LYVCFH3UUACCLR3FQLMCFEWHUWBNSIV0?action=view&contentItem=17816666&Page=1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: John Paul:Actually Peter there is more to ID than just lack of evidence to the contrary. Design is detected in biology pretty much like archeologists, forensics, arson detectives et al. detect design. Also explaining something and demonstrating that explanation to be indicative of reality are two different worlds. If we have absolutely no substantiated evidence that something, like life, could originate via purely natural processes, is it OK to infer purely natural processes are responsible for its origin? ------------------John Paul
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024