Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Give your one best shot - against evolution
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 1 of 224 (6476)
03-10-2002 2:51 PM


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.)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by joz, posted 03-10-2002 3:23 PM Mister Pamboli has replied
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 03-11-2002 2:09 PM Mister Pamboli has replied
 Message 28 by Jet, posted 03-12-2002 3:15 AM Mister Pamboli has replied
 Message 71 by Gary Reason, posted 03-19-2002 1:21 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 157 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 8:15 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 206 by SAGREB, posted 07-12-2002 6:14 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 224 (6478)
03-10-2002 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mister Pamboli
03-10-2002 2:51 PM


[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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-10-2002 2:51 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Philip, posted 03-10-2002 8:58 PM joz has not replied
 Message 4 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-10-2002 9:02 PM joz has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 3 of 224 (6492)
03-10-2002 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by joz
03-10-2002 3:23 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by joz, posted 03-10-2002 3:23 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-10-2002 9:14 PM Philip has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 4 of 224 (6494)
03-10-2002 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by joz
03-10-2002 3:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
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?

I certainly think so. Thus my use of ancestor[b][i]s[/b][/i] in my intial post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by joz, posted 03-10-2002 3:23 PM joz has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 5 of 224 (6495)
03-10-2002 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Philip
03-10-2002 8:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Philip, posted 03-10-2002 8:58 PM Philip has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 224 (6498)
03-10-2002 10:03 PM


"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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-10-2002 11:40 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 7 of 224 (6501)
03-10-2002 11:30 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by quicksink, posted 03-10-2002 11:35 PM KingPenguin has replied
 Message 14 by Peter, posted 03-11-2002 7:21 AM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 16 by nator, posted 03-11-2002 9:12 AM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 19 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-11-2002 11:44 AM KingPenguin has replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 224 (6503)
03-10-2002 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by KingPenguin
03-10-2002 11:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
the fact that humans havent speciated and arent beginning to.

what is your evidence of that?
how do you know that we won't speciate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by KingPenguin, posted 03-10-2002 11:30 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by quicksink, posted 03-10-2002 11:40 PM quicksink has not replied
 Message 11 by KingPenguin, posted 03-11-2002 12:10 AM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 224 (6506)
03-10-2002 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by quicksink
03-10-2002 11:35 PM


if you are going to make such bold claims, do so with some sort of substantiation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by quicksink, posted 03-10-2002 11:35 PM quicksink has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 10 of 224 (6507)
03-10-2002 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Cobra_snake
03-10-2002 10:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
/B]
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-10-2002 10:03 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Philip, posted 03-11-2002 12:36 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 11 of 224 (6514)
03-11-2002 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by quicksink
03-10-2002 11:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
what is your evidence of that?
how do you know that we won't speciate?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by quicksink, posted 03-10-2002 11:35 PM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 03-11-2002 9:18 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 12 of 224 (6518)
03-11-2002 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Mister Pamboli
03-10-2002 11:40 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
/b]
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-10-2002 11:40 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-11-2002 2:15 AM Philip has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 13 of 224 (6522)
03-11-2002 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Philip
03-11-2002 12:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
...Behe made it very clear that he thinks haemoglobin is a good example of a system that CAN be explained within the Darwinian framework.

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
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:
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).
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 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.
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:
Any other systems we might evaluate? The credulity of your faith/biases and my faith/biases are at stake; not science’s/s'.
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:
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.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Philip, posted 03-11-2002 12:36 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Philip, posted 03-12-2002 1:23 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 14 of 224 (6529)
03-11-2002 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by KingPenguin
03-10-2002 11:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
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.

There are physical and physiological differences between the
different races of humanity.
Those differences are (in many instances) directly attributable to
the environments in which those races developed.
Some similar environments with a geographical isolation have
developed 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by KingPenguin, posted 03-10-2002 11:30 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Punisher, posted 03-11-2002 7:32 AM Peter has replied

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 224 (6533)
03-11-2002 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peter
03-11-2002 7:21 AM


quote:
Those differences are (in many instances) directly attributable to the environments in which those races developed.
Some similar environments with a geographical isolation have
developed different variants of humanity (Egypt & Australia
spring to mind).
Doesn't that favour evolution rather not?
All that shows is variation within the human race. They are still human, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peter, posted 03-11-2002 7:21 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Peter, posted 03-11-2002 9:40 AM Punisher has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024