|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Give your one best shot - against evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
Over the last week the posts have wandered a little. So here is a nice focussed challenge:
What is the single most compelling argument that, for you, shows that the diversity of life today did not evolve from common ancestors? (To keep focussed, I have posted another topic for arguments for special creation, so it would be good if you could avoid arguments of the form "I diagree with evolution because I find creation more persuasuive." What I am looking for here is arguments that directly challenge evolution.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[b]What is the single most compelling argument that, for you, shows that the diversity of life today did not evolve from common ancestors?[B][/QUOTE] Just as an aside Mr P do we actually need an ultimate single common ancestor? Could abiogenesis not have produced n types of similar original primitive self replicating organisms?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
1) Diversity (micro-evolution) is feasible to a great extent until 'fine tuned irreducible' complexities or systems become destroyed (during an hypothetical macro-evolution); at this point the organism or entity must necessarily degrade, devolve, and/or perish.
2) 'Fine tuned irreducible' complexities and systems take place on stellar levels, atomic levels, organismic levels, and anthropological levels and can never spontaneously generate. In sum, evolution of fine-tuned irreducible complexities and systems defies any empirical mechanism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: I certainly think so. Thus my use of ancestor[b][i]s[/b][/i] in my intial post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: Thanks Philip, this is a really interesting point, though it rather begs some important questions: are there irreducible complexities in nature and are they fine tuned? I am discussing this currently with another in the complementary "one best shot" thread.Let's take an example of a claimed irreducibly complex system - haemoglobin (the same example as I use in the other topic for consistency.) Would it not be possible for an ancestor of cats and lynxes evolving into both species, taking its irreducibly complex haemoglobin with it? [b] [QUOTE]'Fine tuned irreducible' complexities and systems take place on stellar levels, atomic levels, organismic levels, and anthropological levels and can never spontaneously generate. In sum, evolution of fine-tuned irreducible complexities and systems defies any empirical mechanism.[/b][/QUOTE] This is quite a claim in htat it goes beyond inductive logic - for example, one might claim that we have never seen this happen, so one might presume, with varying degrees of caution, that it never happens.However your categorical statement suggests some deductive reasoning from first principles. Would you tell us what this reasoning is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
"Let's take an example of a claimed irreducibly complex system - haemoglobin (the same example as I use in the other topic for consistency.) Would it not be possible for an ancestor of cats and lynxes evolving into both species, taking its irreducibly complex haemoglobin with it?"
I wasn't aware that haemoglobin was considered an irreducibly complex system. In fact, Behe made it very clear that he thinks haemoglobin is a good example of a system that CAN be explained within the Darwinian framework.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7883 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
the fact that humans havent speciated and arent beginning to. only natural selection and choice in breeding have affected the way our different cultures appear.
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
quote: what is your evidence of that? how do you know that we won't speciate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
if you are going to make such bold claims, do so with some sort of substantiation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: I phoned a friend on this one as I don't have a copy of Behe's book. Indeed you are right, Behe does accept that haemoglobin can be reduced.I offer two meek excuses and a resolution - 1. I was thinking back to the early days of the debate when this was indeed a subject of discussion. The early Gray/Behe debate in 1994 included a fair bit of discussion of the irreducible complexity or otherwise of haemoglobin. I'm getting old: my memory of distant events is better! 2. You could take a "fundamentalist" reading of my question and note that I do not mention Behe in any of my posts. (I have very little time for him, having sat through an abysmal video of his!) So, to be "inerrant" I need only find one person who holds haemoglobin to be irreducibly complex. Here is someone who seems to think it shows CSI and by implication IC as they claim it supports the design argument: http://the_wordbride.tripod.com/evolution.html Does that get me off the hook? Anyway, my apologies for a bad example. Would you like to suggest another one - say blood clotting? In any case, however, my infelicity does not affect my supplementary question which I will rephrase as follows: Would it not be possible for an ancestor of cats and lynxes evolving into both species, to take an irreducibly complex molecular system with it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7883 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: i havent heard that mermaids have been discovered. your last question has that circular problem in that you havent substantied enough evidence to prove beyond a doubt that we will. ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[b] quote: The FIRST formation of hemoglobin per se does fit the definition of a FINE-TUNED IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY or SYSTEM. Referring to your biochemistry text(s), OBSERVE the structure of hemoglobin with the iron atom covalently embedded in an extremely harmonious yet critically complex formation/phenomenon, a formation which cannot be mutated or reduced without degradation and devolvement (i.e., as per 'sickle-cell' and other anemias). For such a structure to ORIGINALLY arise by chance-statistics, artificial or natural selection, or even current experimentation is not feasible, especially without the genetic system(s). How much more impossible would it be to empirically conceive that the HEMOGLOBIN'S EXTREMELY COMPLEX MULTI-TIERED DNA-RNA-ENZYMATIC GENETIC SYSTEMS(s) found within eukaryotes ever themselves evolved from a precursor. The structure of the homologous hemoglobin (the iron embedded molecule found in all blood) is not a FINE-TUNED IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY in your context, nor is the EXTREMELY COMPLEX MULTI-TIERED DNA-RNA-ENZYMATIC system that codes it, because it is not species-specific (or 'kind'-specific), it is found in all bloody life forms. Thus while even appealing to Darwinian frameworks, a PRECURSOR FOR HEMOGLOBIN IS IMPOSSIBLE, from genetic grounds to statistical chance grounds and other empirical frames of thought. Any other systems we might evaluate? The credulity of your faith/biases and my faith/biases are at stake; not science’s/s'. Biochemical macro-evolution, whose raw mechanism would be DNA-MUTATION alone (and not genetic variation) must be concluded as illogical within all frameworks of scientific thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: Well that's interesting! I wonder Philip, if you know why Behe would concede something you regard to be a good example? This isn't my attempt at an argument from authority - I'm just surprised as I would have thought this was a point he would wish to make. I am also surprised at your use of "fine-tuned." Having suffered from quite serious carbon-monoxide poisoning I can tell you from bitter experience that haemoglobin is very far from "fine-tuned" for its purpose in the human bloodstream! Is it not also the case that in some primitive species it appears to be used for removing oxygen and as a transport mechanism for NO? I may be mistaken in the latter case. I am no biochemist and never will be! There do seem to be some flaws in your logic in the latter part of your post ... quote: The probability of the structure arising cannot be calculated after the fact - we simply have no information which would help us properly define the parameters. In particular, we cannot know whether the environmental or biological parameters were such that the probability of the original structure forming was actually quite high. To say that the structure cannot arise by "artificial or natural selection ... especially without the genetic systems" seems to add a curious qualification, as genetic systems are seen as an essential element of mutation and natural selection. "Current experimentation" - I'm not sure at all what you mean by this. If you simply mean that haemoglobin has not been synthesised I do not know if you are correct, but I do not see how it can affect any argument about the evolution of the molecule. Sadly you do not support your assertion that the evolution of the molecule "is not feasible." What are your grounds for asserting it so bravely? quote: How can one empirically conceive something? If you mean to conceive something based solely on observations, then the only things that are "empirically conceivable" are trivial deductions from observation? Are you a skeptical opponent of induction? More strength to your arm if you are! quote: Do you have any? In another post I mention that I am astonished at the limited examples of irreducibly complex systems given by supporters of ID. I would expect many more in a designed lifeform. quote: I cannot find anything in your post that leads to a conclusion, never mind this one. I may be missing something - could you show it as a simple syllogism: premises, argument and then your conclusion? Thanks. [This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: There are physical and physiological differences between thedifferent races of humanity. Those differences are (in many instances) directly attributable tothe environments in which those races developed. Some similar environments with a geographical isolation havedeveloped different variants of humanity (Egypt & Australia spring to mind). Doesn't that favour evolution rather not? And I didn't think speciation was contested anyhow ...maybe I'm wrong there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punisher Inactive Member |
quote: All that shows is variation within the human race. They are still human, no?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024