Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 46 of 73 (8409)
04-10-2002 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Cobra_snake
04-08-2002 2:39 PM


Cobra,
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

I'm sure that there are creationists who are guilty of misquotation and quoting out of context. But I don't believe that this is the rule.

But in message 13 you said
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=17&t=24&p=12 :
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

The evidence for design in nature is abound. Even Richard Dawkins agrees with me here. In absence of a plausible mechanism to explain said design, one may conclude that design is not "designoid", but rather, it is real.

Do you really think Dawkins ACTUALLY said this? In the context that there is a designer, &/or that there is a lacking plausible mechanism? I seriously doubt it. I do suspect a very different context, however. Can you provide the source of this agreement pls. I have a few Dawkins books, so if it is in a book, could you provide the page number.
I’m going to get ahead of myself here & cry misquote!. Dawkins is a committed evolutionist, AND materialist, why would he contradict himself?
I don’t accuse you Cobra, of this misquote, but someone is responsible. It’s probably just bad timing that you were defending creationists against the accusation of serial misquotation, & then dropped one in yourself, but it does detract from your argument that the creationist penchant for misquotes isn’t the rule.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 2:39 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 04-11-2002 12:36 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 69 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-16-2002 10:12 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Weyland
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 73 (8411)
04-10-2002 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by joz
04-07-2002 3:51 PM


To be fair to QS, saying "I don't know how life came to be the way it is" is just as intellectually honest as saying "I'm an agnostic".
If he has come to the position where he feels the evidence for evolution is insufficient at this time and doesn't believe in god(s), what other answer could he honestly give?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by joz, posted 04-07-2002 3:51 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by joz, posted 04-10-2002 2:50 PM Weyland has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 73 (8422)
04-10-2002 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Weyland
04-10-2002 10:53 AM


QS said he did not think that evolution was possible, not ToE but evolution itself i.e change in allelle frequencies over time....
If he meant ToE then I appologise for calling his position incoherrant...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Weyland, posted 04-10-2002 10:53 AM Weyland has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 49 of 73 (8449)
04-11-2002 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by mark24
04-10-2002 9:45 AM


Perhaps Cobra just sited the wrong source. It sounds very much like something Michael Behe might say. Certainly it is precisely the opposite of Richard Dawkins' well known position on ID.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by mark24, posted 04-10-2002 9:45 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-11-2002 1:16 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 51 by mark24, posted 04-11-2002 1:37 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 50 of 73 (8452)
04-11-2002 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Percy
04-11-2002 12:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Perhaps Cobra just sited the wrong source. It sounds very much like something Michael Behe might say. Certainly it is precisely the opposite of Richard Dawkins' well known position on ID.
--Percy

He is possibly thinking of the kind of thing Dawkins says in Chapter 1 of "The Blind Watchmaker": The difference is one of complexity of desiign. Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
But of course, Dawkins is thinking of design in a sense which describes how biological structures serve purposes, not that they were intended by some intelligence to serve a purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 04-11-2002 12:36 PM Percy has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 51 of 73 (8454)
04-11-2002 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Percy
04-11-2002 12:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Perhaps Cobra just sited the wrong source. It sounds very much like something Michael Behe might say. Certainly it is precisely the opposite of Richard Dawkins' well known position on ID.
--Percy

Percy, I want to make clear that I'm not accusing Cobra, but rather to venture that he is the victim of this misquotation, & that creationist misquotes are the rule, rather than the exception ,for the main creationist organisations.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 04-11-2002 12:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 04-11-2002 2:34 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 52 of 73 (8456)
04-11-2002 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mark24
04-11-2002 1:37 PM


Right, I understand. I was just trying to offer an additional possibility in the same vein.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 04-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mark24, posted 04-11-2002 1:37 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 73 (8544)
04-14-2002 10:27 PM


Hehe, lot's of discussion going on around here while I'm away! I'd just like to clarify my position.
There is no misquote or anything involved in what I said about Richard Dawkins' position on design. It was actually just very bad wording on my part.
When I said that Richard Dawkins acknowledges design in nature, what I meant was that he acknowledges the "apparent" design in nature. Of course Richard and I may disagree as to what to attribute such "apparent" design, and I would obviously be more inclined to suppose that a Creator is the reason. Sorry for the confusion everybody.

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 73 (8562)
04-15-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Robert
04-07-2002 6:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
[b]Greetings:
Thank you, Moose, for that thoughtful reply. I hope you can track down that article and either send it to me or give me a good summation of its contents. I will look for it as well.
I realize that people who have a vested interest in evolution and are honest enough to see the biochemical problems that Behe presents would like to remain "optimistic" that evolution will oneday explain the process, but I will remain skeptical.[/QUOTE]
Do you remain skeptical, or do you have a preconcieved notion that you hold to (Creationism)?
quote:
A mousetrap is irreducibly complex...
When you can show me a mousetrap that can reproduce itself, you might have an interesting point.
[QUOTE]Darwin in Origin of Species, pg. 154 writes:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down...[/b]
So, demonstrate it. So far, this has not been done.
Specifically, what predictions does ID make about what an IC system looks like? How do we tell the difference between an IC system and a natural system that we do not understand yet?
Lack of evidence for a scientific theory doesn't constitute positive evidence for anything.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Robert, posted 04-07-2002 6:22 PM Robert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 3:09 PM nator has replied
 Message 56 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 3:21 PM nator has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 73 (8577)
04-15-2002 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nator
04-15-2002 10:56 AM


"So, demonstrate it. So far, this has not been done."
It shall never be done. The problem is, it is impossible to PROVE that a certain structure cannot evolve. However, when certain structures appear to be difficult to explain under a Darwinian model, one has every right to become skeptical of the notion of evolution. It's actually pretty significant that evolutionists can't even create a just-so story to explain some structures!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 04-15-2002 10:56 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-15-2002 4:30 PM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 04-15-2002 5:23 PM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 72 by nator, posted 04-16-2002 1:46 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 73 (8578)
04-15-2002 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nator
04-15-2002 10:56 AM


"Lack of evidence for a scientific theory doesn't constitute positive evidence for anything."
Unfortunately, nothing constitutes "positive evidence" in your mind. What evidence would you accept? If you won't accept any kind of evidence for Creation, then you are purposeslessly ommitting a priori a possibility.
Obviously, such an ommission can be very beneficial for your point of view, since disregarding the possibility of evidence for creation basically means that evolution is victorious. However, such an ommission is not founded on any principle of science, but founded on bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 04-15-2002 10:56 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by nator, posted 04-16-2002 2:02 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 57 of 73 (8580)
04-15-2002 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Robert
04-07-2002 6:22 PM


Hi Robert, I have a few comments concerning your post.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
I realize that people who have a vested interest in evolution and are honest enough to see the biochemical problems that Behe presents would like to remain "optimistic" that evolution will oneday explain the process, but I will remain skeptical.
A mousetrap is irreducibly complex...
I have to say that I am quite familiar with biochemistry (it is what I do for a living) and that I was not impressed by Dr. Behe's arguements. And I am being quite honest (more on that later). First off a mouse trap is not as Behe said, irreducibly complex. The problem is one of approach. If you remove the base and attach the striker and cock to the floor it still works. Behe's examples of simply removing parts is not very representative of life forms. They use and reuse available parts, in this case proteins, to come up with fresh combinations with new functions. The best example is the blood clotting mechanism. If any simpler form could be found then the entire edifice of Irreducible complexity falls to the ground (at least with this example). It would be even better if the organism were from a family or group which was very ancient. The horse shoe crab has a much simpler clotting system with many of the same enzymes or analogous ones which is geared to blocking of bacterial infection. And it is one of the most ancient families known (~ 500 million years and counting). The same is true of almost all of his examples. The one that will be the toughest puzzle pertains to certian anabolic pathways that are pretty much common to all organisms. There are numerous theories out there but none that I find completely convincing. One of the neatest is one put out concerning quantum effects w.r.t. biology, this idea actually came out in the mid 80's and did not get much attentian but there appears to be more now. [QUOTE] Darwin in Origin of Species, pg. 154 writes:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down...[/B][/QUOTE]
Well first, it would definitely shove it aside to a slighter or minor player than it is today, in that I agree. However, such a system has still not been found. He (Dr. Behe) has proposed looking for scientific data to back up his claims many times but without success. Here is just one example
http://www.geocities.com/dr_tazimus_maximus/Behes_goofs_2.htm
In that is another link to a site that destroys the theory behind Dr. Behe's Irreducible complexity as a bar to evolution. As I said at one point in the past, Dr. Behe does raise some interesting question w.r.t. anabolic pathways but I really do not see very much support in the data for Irreducible complexity if specific or ID in general.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Robert, posted 04-07-2002 6:22 PM Robert has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 58 of 73 (8581)
04-15-2002 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Cobra_snake
04-15-2002 3:09 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
It's actually pretty significant that evolutionists can't even create a just-so story to explain some structures! [/B][/QUOTE]
One reason for that is that scientists generally do not create "just so" stories. What they do is try to fit the facts together within a framework, or if no framework exists, they try to make one that follows what is known about natural laws. This is different than the a priori assumption that the cause is known (called by some Goddidit). Some observed facts do not want to fit into a framework, they are set aside and then upon the additoon of supporting data can either discredit the old framework or can be used to effect a minor or major change to the old framework. Sometimes the facts themselves are called into question and changed.
I hope that you do not mind me mixing replies to two posts into one but I am short on time. You also asked a question in a following post about what someone might accept as evidence for creation. I will give you a few examples that, as a scientist, I might accept using the christian creation story as an example.
1) Real evidence of men and cambrian organisms co-existing, this wuold also hold true for mankind in many of the earlier ages. This is one reason for the fraud of Baughs "Man-Tracks", if they were real then evolution would likely be wrong puting some form of a creation event more likely
2) Real evidence for the Noachian flood, of which none currently exists.
3) A biosphere created as we watch.
there are probably some others but I would need to consider a little longer and it is time to go.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 3:09 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 8:36 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 59 of 73 (8582)
04-15-2002 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Cobra_snake
04-15-2002 3:09 PM



Cobra_snake writes:
It shall never be done. The problem is, it is impossible to PROVE that a certain structure cannot evolve. However, when certain structures appear to be difficult to explain under a Darwinian model, one has every right to become skeptical of the notion of evolution. It's actually pretty significant that evolutionists can't even create a just-so story to explain some structures!
The reason scientists accept evolution is not because they went down a list of biological structures and found reasonable scenarios for their evolutionary development. Developing such scenarios can be a fascinating exercise and can result in powerful insights for guiding genetic research, but they are not proof of or evidence of evolution. They are simply the application of evolutionary principles to solving and teasing out possible evolutionary pathways.
And just because we work out a reasonable scenario for some biological structure does not mean it really happened that way. There's no way to know what *really* happened because DNA doesn't leave fossils behind. The only evidence we have is the DNA we find in living organisms and sometimes in well-preserved dead ones (frozen mammoths in Siberia come to mind), and everything else is analysis, deduction and inference.
The primary evidence for evolution is the same today as it was nearly 200 years ago. The fact that evolution had taken place was first recognized in the early 19th century when the fossil record of change over time contained within the geologic column was uncovered.
By the way, did you realize your statement, "It is impossible to PROVE that a certain structure cannot evolve," is precisely what evolutionists have been trying to tell Behe and his followers for years? (Naturally by "PROVE" you really mean "present persuasive evidence")
Even worse for IDers, there are no rules restricting God to performing only supernatural acts. Even Creationists accept that a creature could evolve a thicker coat of fur, but just because it could have happened naturally doesn't mean it didn't really happen through divine intervention. Once you start inferring forces for which you have no evidence, the possibilities are limited only by your imagination. Your car started this morning the first try - was it normal everyday physics and chemistry, or a miracle? I flick my lighter. Perhaps the spark was sufficient to light the flame, or perhaps not and God intervened for me and saved me the trouble of flicking again. Who could know?
If the appearance of evolution in the geologic column is really just a succession of divine miracles, then anything that happens anywhere could just as easily be a divine miracle. With no way to differentiate, since divine intervention never leaves any evidence, it is an idea without any predictive, and therefore also without any scientific, value.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 3:09 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 73 (8596)
04-15-2002 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
04-15-2002 4:30 PM


"1) Real evidence of men and cambrian organisms co-existing, this wuold also hold true for mankind in many of the earlier ages. This is one reason for the fraud of Baughs "Man-Tracks", if they were real then evolution would likely be wrong puting some form of a creation event more likely"
This always tends to pop up as one of the best potential falsifications of evolution. However, it is very possible for Creation to be true, and also no human remains in lower strata.
"2) Real evidence for the Noachian flood, of which none currently exists."
Yes, but is there any evidence that would convince you? I can't think of any evidence that could be found that would falsify the uniformitaranian concept.
"3) A biosphere created as we watch."
Hmmm? Sounds interesting, but I don't really know what you mean.
Also, even if your above examples are valid, what I was really looking for was evidence of design in nature. In other words, it is possible that the Earth is millions of years old, yet Creation is still true.
"there are probably some others but I would need to consider a little longer and it is time to go."
I appreciate your input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-15-2002 4:30 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Joe Meert, posted 04-15-2002 8:57 PM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 62 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-15-2002 9:30 PM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 64 by joz, posted 04-16-2002 9:30 AM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 70 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-16-2002 10:27 AM Cobra_snake 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