evolution?

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

[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

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
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.

---

Actually I believe that one of the books was "Climbing Mount Improbable" although I do not remember the page number and do not have the book here with me. I believe that Dawkins was refering to the appearence of design, rather like the appearence of Elvis's head in a mold stain .------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]"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. [/QUOTE]

​

Depends on which creation story or arguement you use. For most of the ones out there the answer to your statement is, no it is not possible. These are the creation arguements which rely on a 7 day generation of the earth, heavens and all life and on a giant flood. Now, if you use one where evolution is guided by a diety then I can agree with you (more on this later).

quote:

---

"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.

---

​

That is part of the problem, all of the currently available evidence points AWAY from a flood and towards a uniformitarian basis for geology. There may be potential evidence but it would have to be so earth shattering (pun intended) that it would completely overturn geology as we know it.

quote:

---

"3) A biosphere created as we watch."

​

Hmmm? Sounds interesting, but I don't really know what you mean.

---

​

essentially the creation of a new series of life forms interacting in a stable (or not so stable) ecological grouping.

quote:

---

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.

---

​

OK, first off I should say that I am familiar with the ID movement and have read material by Dr. Behe of LeHigh university and Dr. Johnson (sp??, he did work with molecular biology w.r.t. embriology or development) and I have found their arguements lacking w.r.t. their detection of design. They are the only people to date, to my knowledge, who have really tried to come up with some research ideas to bear out their ID and/or Irreducible complexity concepts. As far as I am aware they have not been able to generate any data to date. In fact some of the ideas that they have proposed are blowing up in their faces:genetic sequence of some archeabacteria for example, here is some info on a proposal made by Behe in Mere Creation that I pulled together
http://www.geocities.com/dr_tazimus_maximus/Behes_goofs_2.htm
Sorry for any problems with web page (if you can call it that), I am a far better biochemist than a web person and have had little time to work on it over the last 2 years. The point to all of this is that I have seen precious little evidence, none actually, for design. [QUOTE] "there are probably some others but I would need to consider a little longer and it is time to go."

​

I appreciate your input.[/b]

---

Thanks, I always enjoy a good, and non-rancorous discussion.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

​

[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-16-2002]