Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 154 of 223 (92648)
03-15-2004 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by MrHambre
03-12-2004 4:04 PM


Re: Raining on the Love Parade
While "our knowledge of abiogenesis may always be extremely tentative" the gaps are closing and possibilities become more likely in the process.
I have compiled some relevant information at this webpage:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/AbbyLeever/Building-Blocks.htm
I leave you with this conclusion from the essay:
"From these building blocks it should be clear to a rational mind that the building blocks needed for the creation of life were plentiful, not just on Earth but in space in general and from the earliest of times. Probably they have been around since long before even the Earth formed from the cosmic debris left behind by the life and death cycle of previous stars and planets, back to the beginning of time. These "seeds of life" no doubt extend through the far reaches of the universe as well as the depths of time (cue Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young ... "We are star dust ...").
It also should be clear to a rational mind that the natural processes for forming more complex structures from those basic building blocks were prevalent on the earth at least 3.5 billion years ago in a variety of forms and locations. We are left with a scenario that has a random combination of plentiful and multitudinous organic molecules forming amino acids all over the earth, with a second scenario that has random combination of plentiful and multitudinous amino acids into peptides and proteins, and a third scenario that has random combinations of plentiful and multitudinous peptides and proteins into the first "replicators" (the predecessors to RNA and DNA), a simple 3 step process where the probability of a successful combination is almost inevitable: it is no longer a matter of "if" but of "when" it will occur under these conditions ... and once self replication occurs the frequency of replication will necessarily outpace the random action, replicators that are faster and stronger will outpace their competition ... life is inevitable when given the conditions for life.
Enjoy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by MrHambre, posted 03-12-2004 4:04 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Brad McFall, posted 03-16-2004 3:31 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 157 of 223 (93070)
03-18-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Brad McFall
03-16-2004 3:31 PM


Re: Raining on the Love Parade
I have looked at these words several times to see if I can glean meanings from them. Are you always this obscure?
Your "rods in the guise of clockwork" is a curious attempt at metaphor, as I have taken several clocks apart without finding any rods that were part of the driving mechanism (other than support structure) - they have all been geared - and as such it carries no message value other than "sounding" mystical.
By "Newton-black bodies" you presumably mean a Newton black box - the hypothetical mechanism that does a task without knowing what the mechanism is (being hidden inside the box). This would get us a little closer to something to discuss if you went somewhere with it. The cell can be considered a black box for producing other cells.
The rest is gibberish. imho.
Enjoy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Brad McFall, posted 03-16-2004 3:31 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by wj, posted 03-18-2004 2:05 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 162 by Brad McFall, posted 03-18-2004 2:58 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 160 of 223 (93123)
03-18-2004 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by mark24
03-18-2004 4:07 AM


Re: Raining on the Love Parade
ah
thank you. being new here, I am not familiar with the "characters" of this board yet. trolls I am aware of and ignore on policy, but this was a new style for me ... I guess with moderators you have to at least appear to be discussing the topic even if what you say is total nonsense.
Is there an "Ignore Author" (IA) function here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by mark24, posted 03-18-2004 4:07 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Brad McFall, posted 03-18-2004 2:52 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 165 by MrHambre, posted 03-18-2004 4:34 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 164 of 223 (93181)
03-18-2004 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Brad McFall
03-18-2004 2:52 PM


Re: The Parade without Behe
Brad quote:
"If Behe's IC was refuted then IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO BE"
A patently false application of logic. Behe could be wrong and god could still have exhaled the universe while saying "surprise me ... " and left it all on it's own to develop from that first cloud over 13.7 billion years ago to the formation of earth 4.55 billion years ago, to the process that assembled the available building blocks into the format of life that we know (and love), including the late appearance of hominids, and ultimately the people we bump into on the elevators of life. A process of life formation totally undirected by any supernatural interest, yet set in motion by the breath of being. Or you could just be a monkey's uncle.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Brad McFall, posted 03-18-2004 2:52 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Brad McFall, posted 03-19-2004 10:39 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 166 of 223 (93221)
03-18-2004 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by MrHambre
03-18-2004 4:34 PM


Re: Our Brad
Thanks that helps a lot. I will try to glean meaning from the posts where I can. I hate it when a message seems almost accessible and the idea seems cogent but the communication interface is the problem.
and he does seem more cogent then some C'sts I know from another board.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by MrHambre, posted 03-18-2004 4:34 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 168 of 223 (93436)
03-19-2004 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Brad McFall
03-19-2004 10:39 AM


Re: The raid without Behe or some such
formally false -- not enough links, like if A then B therefore Q happen, thought it was clear from the context, but then context changes with view?
(Kant say I did much philosophy in college .. have picked up some at Hume since, but not enough to Hegel over form or Locke onto specifics.)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Brad McFall, posted 03-19-2004 10:39 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Brad McFall, posted 03-23-2004 9:37 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 170 of 223 (94125)
03-23-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Brad McFall
03-23-2004 9:37 AM


Re: Rome such
k
I am new here so have missed a lot {~all} preceeding arguments.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Brad McFall, posted 03-23-2004 9:37 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Brad McFall, posted 03-23-2004 3:30 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 172 of 223 (94302)
03-24-2004 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Brad McFall
03-23-2004 3:30 PM


Re: R
But physics may indeed have too much alternatives that will not come to light in medicine (hence irreducibly complex).
I have not seen IC in anyting yet, though several have been suggested. The kaleidoscope is my metaphor here ... one end sees pattern the other a jumble ... which is the real view?
we (each) our (respective) implied, although as a student I have been limited by the ability of my teacher (I am no teacher, but a seeker)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Brad McFall, posted 03-23-2004 3:30 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Brad McFall, posted 03-24-2004 11:17 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 174 of 223 (94443)
03-24-2004 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Brad McFall
03-24-2004 11:17 AM


trading knowledge
ahahahaa indeed we are, and all that seek should get the window discount (or is it a loss-leader?)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Brad McFall, posted 03-24-2004 11:17 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Brad McFall, posted 03-30-2004 4:34 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 176 of 223 (96341)
03-31-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Brad McFall
03-30-2004 4:34 PM


Re: trading knowledge and a fair trade
There is no need for you to try to follow me around this board. If you simply settle into any particular thread I will adapt my discussion accordingly.
Wasn't aware that I was. It may seem that way as we appear to be interested in similar topics (but not all the same when I look at what threads posted to (click on names)). Fascinating.
last Friday's NPR scienceFriday ... The subject was fossil primate DNA analysis
No, did not get to listen, the (3) NPR stations here do not carry that show (that I am aware anyway and we get program notices) and it sounds like a program of interest, yes. I will look on web for streaming version.
UPCMA produces a rooted tree of a special kind. The edge lengths in the resulting tree cana be viewed as times measured by a MOLECULAR CLOCK with a constant rate.
Now here I have a little trouble. Why does it have to be a constant rate, rather than an average rate or a varying rate? Artistic aesthetics imposed on the concept? Or is that just because it makes the math work out easier (similar to looking under streetlight for lost keys). One would need to show why one organism living in a very sheltered environment would could should have the same rate as one living in a very exposed environment. There are spots on DNA known to be more susceptible to mutations and others where mutations are usually fatal early and others where no effect noticed for longtime.
Seems to me that the rate of susceptibility to mutation has evolved to reach a certain equilibrium levels with the need to change to adapt to constantly varying environments - Nash equilibriums if you will. This would necessarily be a rate of change larger than needed to maintain species change within a stable environment because there is no stable environment but ones that oscillate around median values.
This could have occurred within the first billion years of existence and it could still be ongoing fine-tuning with variations in exposures in different environments thus allowing organism (A) above to have near same rate as organism (B) above, or one more optimum for life where it lives. Thus (mito)Eve and (ygene)Adam have same numbers of mutations (roughly) and near match to Ethiopia's oldest anatomically modern humans but number game diverging and amount accelerating with greater age into diverse past.
No known natural trees have property of equidistance nor do any phylogenic that I am aware, why should this be any different.
You may also be aware that Master Books had just come out with J. Sarfarti's REFUTING COMPROMISE A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of 'Progreesive Creationism' (billions of years) as popularized by Hugh Ross. wherein on page 158 (thanks to preprint of AIG) two circles A&B are labelled "Maximum distance light could have traveled" within a backfound ostensibly representing the "big bang"
Being promoted by AIG is not a bonus in my opinion (please see footnote below on integrity and AIG), a search of the book title gives me more information from other sources
  • amazon - " With brilliant clarity, Jonathan Sarfati, author of the best-selling Refuting Evolution (1 and 2) has produced a comprehensive and ringing refutation of the position of "progressive creationist" Hugh Ross, whose views are causing massive confusion about science and the Bible. This book is one of the most powerful biblical and scientific defenses of a straightforward view of Genesis creation ever written."
  • masterbooks.net - ibid (verbatim .... canned review?)
  • TASC - From Dr. Sarfati, If we marry our theology to today’s science, we’ll be widowed tomorrow . Those who wish to deny a particular interpretation of Genesis need to find a basis in the biblical text from the application of these rules; an appeal to general human fallibility is simply not sufficient compromise with materialism is impossible, for materialists will never be satisfied until all of Christianity is vanquished .
  • AIG Operation refute Compromise - Q: Shouldn’t we at least look at scientific data when interpreting Scripture?
    A: ‘Creationists have nothing against science being used ministerially, i.e. to build on the framework provided by the propositional teachings of Scripture, e.g. to build models to help elucidate Scripture . What we object to is using science magisterially to override what the text plainly teaches. For example, we object to using ‘science’ to deny a global Flood at the time of Noah, because the Bible clearly teaches this. However, we use true science to attempt to figure out the pre-Flood/Flood boundary or the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the geological record
Sounds like dissension in the ranks of creationists of rather profound depth (YEC vs OEC), that would need to be resolved before anything derived from it should be brought to the table of education imho. Furthermore, the interview clearly shows that Sarfati is looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion and discarding information that does not fit that conclusion, not a scientific approach. Given that mindset, there is no reason to think that any of his {creation related} work is scientific. Note that Dr Jonathan Sarfati works at AiG-Australia (where did he get that PhD?) -- so they endorse one of their own, no surprise there, but this makes the "interview" a set piece as both are on the same paycheck.
One of the most common attacks on the YEC model by old-earthers such as Ross is that light would supposedly not have had enough time to reach earth from distant stars(this is discussed in chapter 6). But the horizon problem is the big bangers' own "light travel problem."
This sounds like circular reasoning, but I don't see enough of the argument to judge that. Certainly the scientific explanation is consistent with the observations made to date, I know of no "horizon problem" in astro-physics here, but am not an expert in this field (perhaps Eta_Carinae could help?)
How can old earthers freely criticize YEC on the very problem that they have not yet solved from their own perspective?"
Indeed, how can OEC or YEC freely criticize scientists on the very problem that they have not yet solved from their own perspective?
I am not suggest that RNA fossil "leaves" may be seperated at these distances ... where I take it that critics of Safarti or me for that matter at this point would DENY that baramins are seperated by absolute motive motions(wihtout specifying the veolcity vs the simultanity of position etc) OR actually MOVE absolutely with respect to each other (on view only involves time and the other may equivocate between space and form(raw material))subjecitve divisions of the baraminologist
The problem comes down to having enough time to reach the present {state of species diversity} from an {original life state} given the rate of change within species on an overall basis. If you don't accept the time basis you have major problems with accepting the change over time model. If you accept the change over time model you have major problems with accepting a YEC model.
... due to me considering that in fact URNA is Bridgeman'sp27"The effect of the motion on the rate of a clock, or indeed how the rate of moving clock may be defined, is immaterial, Whatever it may be, it does not enter the defintion of self-measured velocity, which specifies a unique procedure and therefore a unique result for any given motion."
As noted above, I have problems with the rate clock mechanism being steady state and note that there are documented periods when mass extinctions have left a species vacuum in diversity and {habitat \ niche \ environment \ ecosystem}, the most recent being the end of the age of dinosaurs by cosmic fiat (asteroid, iridium layer). There is evidence of rapid relative speciation after such events, the most complete that I know of for the asteroid encounter being the Foraminifera record (click)
One of the last great extinctions occurred roughly 66 million years ago, ... and also wiped out a good portion of Earth's marine life -- including almost all species of planktonic forams.
Since the foram record extends through a major extinction event (some of the samples date back nearly 100 million years), ... says Parker. "How often is it that you get to almost wipe your slate clean and then watch an ecosystem start up all over again?"
Some scientists have theorized, but never been able to demonstrate, that in the absence of competition, an explosion of life takes place.
As foram survivors rush to occupy their new habitats, they seem to start experimenting will all sorts of body shapes, trying to find something stable, something that will work, Arnold said. Once a population in a given habitat develops a shape or other characteristic that stands up to the environment, suddenly the organisms begin to coalesce around what becomes a standardized form, the signature of a new species.
As the available niches begin to fill up with these new creatures, the speciation rate begins to slow down, and pressure from competition between species appears to bear down in earnest. The extinction rate then rises accordingly.
The major effect of reduced selection pressure would be allowing more changes to find survival strategies, increasing diversity and letting organisms that might be sub-optimal with competition be able to coalesce into more optimal forms before competition becomes problematic. There would also be a reduction in selection pressure on maintaining the rate of change and allow it to increase temporarily before the pressure resumes. I don't know if anyone has looked for evidence of that effect, but it would seem to me to be an area to investigate to resolve the question of the rate clock.
I would like to stay with positive side only. I am far from asserting that polybaramins are universal biological frameworks. But dont hold your breath unless you have billions of years.
My worldview does have billions of years, but I am not holding my breath either. Life on other worlds has yet to be demonstrated.
It shouldnt be else I will stop posting with you for the tiring reason of my age only. I am weary of seeing the GIFT horse not under the bed but only getting the mouthback.
Age? I figured you to be 30-40. Certainly not over 65. 'Weary' I can understand from experience on other boards.
Footnote on AIG and ICR re factual information:
Both sites continue to list arguments that have been invalided for some time. AIG tries to cover it with a list of "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" (click):
This page also shows why it is important for people to stay up-to-date with sound creationist literature, since these publications (e.g. Creation magazine, and TJ) have already revealed the fallacious nature of some of these arguments.
But it contradicts that by actively giving links to things on that list with no disclaimers or references to the list.
Search for {Paluxy} on the AIG site and you get 24 listings, #23 is the {do not use} list and #11 has it in the appendix and several others list it as "controversial" and several refer to articles in their magazine that are not linked (don’t know what they say) -- but why are their any listings that promote it? Why have links to sites that actively promote it?
What does the {do not use} list say:
‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.
Last sentence unsubstantiated and the words "Paluxy tracks" are hyperlinked to an ICR article - the Paluxy River Mystery, an article of hyperbolic hokum if I ever read one, but one that does not say the claims are false.
Also note that AIG vs Kent Hovind (click) has this:
[KENT H]:
Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed
AiG: Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artifacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks.
KENT H: I disagree. 1. We do not need to find tracks together since, A. There is ample evidence from many sources that man and dinosaurs coexisted.
[AiG]: The repeated use of this approach (defending against something that was not stated, is beside the point, and equivocates on definitions) is hopefully not deliberate. Our point was simply that this particular line of evidence should not be used in its present condition of weakness.
But then they do the same thing (defending against something that was not stated) on their {do not use} list.
The article by Glen Kuban on TalkOrigins.org, on the other hand, tells of personal experience in determining the track are not mixed dinosaur and human but all dinosaur in origin with variations in prints found on other trails (see footprint variations) with some that match the "controversial" ones.
Simply put, the tracks don't size up. The integrity does not size up. Sorry for the rant, but this is one of my pet peeves (down boy): that false information is not taken off such sites, earning my label "creatortionista" - a combination of creation, distortion and fanatics ("-istas"). You will guess that ICR is high on that list.
end of footnotes.
I do think that AIG's list of "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" (click) should be required reading for all creationists as it shows where creationist arguments have had to yield to evidence that invalidates those arguments. Among them are one of my favorites "if we came from monkeys, why ..." -- which was posted recently.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Brad McFall, posted 03-30-2004 4:34 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Brad McFall, posted 04-01-2004 11:38 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 178 of 223 (96813)
04-01-2004 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Brad McFall
04-01-2004 11:38 AM


Re: trading knowledge and a fair trade
what does the word "state" mean in state of species diveristy?
having enough time to reach the present {state of species diversity}
perhaps stage or status would work better, the number and distribution and multiplicity (why similar ecosystems have different "solutions" on different continents), all the species living in "... all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world ..."
Can species diversity be correlated with "empty space" for instance?
There is no "empty space" space time is a flux a dance of subatomic particles the lobster quadrille of matter and energy more in some places less in others. Perhaps the dance of particles is life on a larger scale, the 'being' that touches us all.
If anything I tend to be able to think of increased categories of selection thus I see no reason given the current mold of taxonomy to suspect a reduction at first. Even with tensors and adapation at possible conceptual odds I find first and foremost instead that there ARE MOST LIKELY stable environments (but something that Gould thought was "internal developmental constraints") dynamically supported by (not resulting in) changes in stablezing selection (either from extremes to central (starting with extreme selection) or central to extreme (starting with your "median" stat) due to the kinematics of this "environment" EXTERNAL to gene flow much as one tries to THINK of the twin traveling light problem alongide TWO corridiante frames.
Stable environments could be maintained by some biological feedback to a certain degree and likely to happen where species exhibit stasis as environment would have to be static enough to allow stasis to exist, grazing buffalo maintaining prairie habitat effect. Hard to say which causes what.
This requires a certain degree of similar use of terms.
That has always been a problem when the basis is divergent viewpoints.
class on Molecular Evolution, but the field has not improved
I think ME still has some growing to do.
It will probably do more good for you and I to cool the jets as we are having a hard time matching conversation and I for one have found simply responding IN RESPONSE to someone of less value than engaging in beneficial improvements and as since we can barely co-ordinate our own understandings to each other it is likley seeing even the difference of our views is not likely to benefit any of the other readers here on EVC ... As if you and I can not agree on where it came from and where it is it makes making linkagaes in betweeen of less value I feel than not posting at all and rather spending a proportiontely more amount of time reading what others have or are contributing so as better to target the placement of posts. I probably could have avoided posting the line about you "following" me. That was written with more anger than anything else in mind. Thanks again for your effort and it is nice to know that you saw my work elsewhere as well. Best. Brad.
I can live with that. Sorry to cause anger, not my intent, & apologize for it. I will still enjoy your posts as I think you are one smart cookie and devour a lot of books. A different view can open eyes with wonder. Enjoy, friend.
AL.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Brad McFall, posted 04-01-2004 11:38 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Brad McFall, posted 04-02-2004 11:23 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 180 of 223 (97476)
04-03-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Brad McFall
04-02-2004 11:23 AM


Re: trading knowledge and a fair trade
Brad - sorry to take so long getting back to you on this one, I think we can work on looking for if not finding common ground.
All of this is fine but where is BEHE or IC in all this If there is empty space THEN there could be a complexity by GOD and Behe might be correct but I have not gotten there as you for instance denied even in question here as to "correlation". LOOK, when calculating heritibility (regardless of you and I cleaning up our own terms statistics wise)the current elite crop is looking for correlations genetically, ie -GEENTIC CORRELATIONS. I am looking at a differnt causal depth where themal current correlations may ordinate THE SAME DATA. I could be wrong but the possibility remands creationism's existence in general when not in particular, and in general we are supposed to be discussing behe here!.
Agreed, we are and have been way off topic here. All instances I am familiar with where Behe has introduced evidence for irreducible complexity (IC) have been reduced, as far as I know, to simpler systems that do function independent of final construct albeit for different purposes in some cases. Personally I think looking for IC in biological data is looking to separate a strand of grass in a stack of hay - you need to know the difference between straw and hay to discern it, whereas a needle would poke you with information. I would look to cosmology and quantum physics, for areas where we do not know what we know, and see if there are alternate explanations that work. This does not mean fantasy spiritual planes separated from the physical world by an unknown process but complexity within physics from observations not explained by previous theory, epicycle explanations after the observation to fix the theory.
Having tortured himself over Galton's paper, Darwin wrote ... Darwin maked several passages in Galton's paper with numbers and enumerated his criticims in the text ... Darwin was "very sorry to differ so much from you but I have thought that you would desire my open opinion."
All very interesting as historical documentation but little bearing on current biological thought and invalidated inheritance of acquired characteristics, Darwin being unfamiliar with genes in specific and genetics in general, and needing a mechanism of inheritance.
If there is ONLY one way to spread time across biological space (I could be wrong, I just wanted to set up some conditions under which BEHE could? be correct) AND heritbility is due to sequence correlations among (not necessarily between) DNA, RNA, and Protein (as per acutally timable differences of heat transfer and ionic flow)(hence Gould and company (and you?)) are looking for the correlations in the wrong place(and lewontin in the wrong prefix) (and it may even be possible to find one with repsect to the old prerelativity ether in the future of life exploration...)THEN we could even apriori dissus IC.
There needs to be a mechanism to spread biological systems across space that matches observed correlations between species at the genetic level -- it is the same as the question of animals from noah's ark, the "why there and only there" questions but related to genetic sequences within related species, tunneling back in time to the first ancestor, or possible group of ancestors as I don't think there needs to be a single ancestor for the mechanism to work and certainly the concept fails for sexual species (no single mito-Eve no single y-gene-Adam). Each group you look at within any point in time distribution would have similar genetic history pointing back to a first ancestor in deeper history due to the group having characteristics that have been filtered out since then to now (a Mandelbrot set complexity at different scales). This creates additional problems for first life forms generation in both philosophical and mathematical directions. Perhaps another place to look for IC for the Cist crowd?
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Brad McFall, posted 04-02-2004 11:23 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Brad McFall, posted 04-05-2004 1:32 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 182 of 223 (97956)
04-05-2004 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Brad McFall
04-05-2004 1:32 PM


Re: trading knowledge and a fair trade
brad -
I will get to this, just not for a while yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Brad McFall, posted 04-05-2004 1:32 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 183 of 223 (98018)
04-06-2004 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Brad McFall
04-05-2004 1:32 PM


back to Behe maybe next
You will have to give me some time as I ensure that for there are no simple mathematical contradictions in this apporach at first.
always a safe approach.
arguing that Provine for instance must find that ther is God and not his control of free will but I AM ARGUING that I should have been given an undergraduate degree to look into issues such molecularly that Gould asserted with or without Rhodes that species a can not offspring into species B in geological time.
I was familiar with Provine but not Provine and made provincial mistake is assuming only one of interest to evolution debates, my bad.
RProvine is interesting with his work on laughter and evolution of behavior
WProvine is new to me and I can see why he would be a lightening rod for some, but feel he like Dawkins overstates the case. At best he can only say that he sees no god within his provenance. He also appears to be working essentially on the evolution of evolution and thus is a little 'incestuous' for me.
From A to B in time T is the problem we have discussed before with concerns on limits to T. Is geological T the scale of the geologists?
tried to say that even Darwin allowed a seperation of descent and any mechanism. I do not find this at all to be true. So if Darwin said that he was wrong.
I believe that Darwin allowed for several mechanisms, but am not sure he would allow just any. Certainly he allowed Lamarkish acquired characteristics inheritance, but was unaware of a certain monk and genetics. Scientifically we can talk about where evolution is on what mechanisms are available and which have been shown invalid, and this more appropriate than talking about 100 year old formulations from before certain information revolutions. There are ways to divide populations (habitats and habits), and ways to select individuals (natural selection and sexual selection, and in "higher" developed to intellectual conceptualization of interrelations I would expect intellectual selection - though this may work against needs of species as evidence fewer offspring correlation with education, which begs question of intellect being a beneficial trait) and both have interrelated effect on final outcomes.
but the cladistic investment of computer algorthims has not helped the statement of gene flow over all either. If heireachies incidentally are proportionately MORE self-similar than metrically divided creationism stands to gain even more ground
There is no doubt that the information of DNA, genetics and a kind of genetic paleontology is in the process of making possibly far reaching changes to the previous assumed structure of {the life we know the way we know it}, but this is still in the infancy stage as things go even in the fast world of scientific innovation: only the third complete genome structure has been completed and none of the three existent (human, mouse, rat) is too deep on varietal differences.
Whether this lead to new thoughts of complexity of systems is unknown at this time.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Brad McFall, posted 04-05-2004 1:32 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Brad McFall, posted 04-06-2004 7:42 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 186 of 223 (102441)
04-24-2004 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Cold Foreign Object
04-24-2004 5:07 PM


And yet everyone of Behe's examples of IC have been shown to be nothing of the sort, rather they are failures of understanding and of ignorance of facts.
every example that I am aware of has been refuted as being IC.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-24-2004 5:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-24-2004 6:21 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024