Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-17-2019 4:41 PM
141 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Theodoric (3 members, 138 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,607 Year: 2,644/19,786 Month: 726/1,918 Week: 13/301 Day: 13/38 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   How do we tell the difference, Ahmad?
nator
Member (Idle past 213 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 63 (25138)
12-01-2002 11:01 AM


Hi there Ahmad,

The thread where these messages were living was closed, so I am moving them here so they don't get lost.

{Added by Adminnemooseus - The above mentioned thread is "NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation". That topic, and my topic closing message can be found at www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=17&m=148#148 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=17&m=148#148">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=17&m=148#148. Anyone interested, can look backwards from that point, to see where this new topic is coming from.}

If you could answer them, I would be most grateful.

How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently-Designed/Irreducably Complex system and a natural one which we;

1) do not understand yet, but may in the future, and/or

2) do not have the intelligence to understand?

The other issue I bring up is the misquote of Sephen J. Gould. I remember that you apologized for using it, but you have yet to comment upon my allegations that the quote was very obviously intentionally and radically altered to change it's meaning completely in order to purposefully mislead you to think that SJG didn't think that Evolution was very likely.

What do you think about people who would do something as blatantly dishonest and manipulative as this? Do you now doubt any of the other quotes or information on this site, now that you know that they do not mind lying and misrepresenting other people's words?

Even the best-case scenario, in which they were repeating someone else's misquote, is still really pretty bad, because this means that they are unbelievable sloppy and do not check their sources for accuracy.

Have you contacted the site where you got the quote from to let them know that the end of the sentence was chopped off, changing it's meaning completely? If so, have they changed anything on the site?

What site did you get it from, anyway?

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-01-2002]

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-01-2002]

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-01-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Ahmad, posted 12-02-2002 5:47 AM nator has responded
 Message 20 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 9:04 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 63 (25218)
12-02-2002 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
12-01-2002 11:01 AM


Hi schraf,

quote:
How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently-Designed/Irreducably Complex system and a natural one which we;

1) do not understand yet, but may in the future, and/or

2) do not have the intelligence to understand?


Good question. Before proceeding, it's very important to be clear just what I mean by "design": The imposition of structure upon some object or collection of objects for some purpose, where the structure and the purpose are not inherent in the properties of the components but make use of these properties.

So anything that is "designed" indicates "purpose"... a "function". Here's where IC takes the toll.. I prefer Behe's definition: "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

So anything that is irreducibly complex is intelligently designed and denotes purpose and indicates the existence of an "Intelligent Designer". But ID can be identified by other means also. One major area of such identification would be (although off-topic), the cosmological anthropic principle: why are the constants of the universe so finely tuned to support life on this planet? Is it reasonable to suppose that this is the result either of chance or of some as yet unknown natural law?

Don't mind me giving these explanations.. you may very well be aware of them or know more about them than me... but am just clarifying my position before beginning this discussion

Now regarding your (1) point, the thing is we understand the system fully. That is exactly why we are saying that its irreducibly complex. We know that the system X needs components A,B,C,D to effectively function such as the removal of even one component ceases the function of the entire system.

Regarding your (2) point which is completely unpredictable. You're saying that we, at the present time, don't possess the intelligence to understand such systems. You may be right.. who knows, may be in the future we can understand the system better and draw out the evolutionary pathways. But using your own logic, it is also possible for the opposite to be true. We don't know. Anything is possible. But this is irrelevant to the present argument. We can make good predictions... but for the moment let us rely on the evidence at hand.

One more thing... your (2) is quite noteworthy at the same time since it proves that ID/IC is a "scientific theory" which carries the potential to be falsified.

quote:
What do you think about people who would do something as blatantly dishonest and manipulative as this? Do you now doubt any of the other quotes or information on this site, now that you know that they do not mind lying and misrepresenting other people's words?

I understand what you're trying to say. For the record, I trust only a very few websites. It's sort of my fault because at that time I was carried away. I will try not repeating it in the future. To err is man. And I do agree with you. There are some extremely biased creationist websites which quote such "out-of-context" quotes and mislead people. But you can't deny the existence of certain evolutionist websites that do that too. The former practising it more.. I have to say. But anyways.. this won't happen in the future Insha Allah.

quote:
Have you contacted the site where you got the quote from to let them know that the end of the sentence was chopped off, changing it's meaning completely? If so, have they changed anything on the site?

For the record, I don't remember what site I got it from. I'll look for it. But do you really think they will change once I inform them. I really do doubt that. The thing is.. I got so mad I removed the site from my favorites. But if you really want.. I can look for it again (which I really don't want to).

I recommend we continue our dialog about ID/IC instead of picking what happens to be my mistake. Its irrelevant at this moment. I am quite sure we can build a constructive discussion about the current topic you had on mind since you started the thread. I suggest keeping that active

Regards,
Ahmad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 12-01-2002 11:01 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 12-02-2002 12:48 PM Ahmad has responded
 Message 17 by Peter, posted 12-19-2002 6:19 AM Ahmad has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 213 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 3 of 63 (25272)
12-02-2002 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Ahmad
12-02-2002 5:47 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ahmad:
Hi schraf,

quote:
How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently-Designed/Irreducably Complex system and a natural one which we;

1) do not understand yet, but may in the future, and/or

2) do not have the intelligence to understand?


quote:
Good question. Before proceeding, it's very important to be clear just what I mean by "design": The imposition of structure upon some object or collection of objects for some purpose, where the structure and the purpose are not inherent in the properties of the components but make use of these properties.

Funny, that sounds just like what evolution does; uses pre-existing structures for different uses.

In this sense, it is true that natural selection "designs", by favoring individuals with certain variations to reproduce more sucessfully than others in a given environment.

quote:
So anything that is "designed" indicates "purpose"... a "function". Here's where IC takes the toll.. I prefer Behe's definition: "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

OK.

quote:
So anything that is irreducibly complex is intelligently designed and denotes purpose and indicates the existence of an "Intelligent Designer".

Whoa there, sparky! Don't put the cart before the horse, now.

There is a huge leap of reasoning here that you are making.

Why do IC systems indicate ID? Where is your evidence that IC systems cannot occur naturally?

The flaw is your (and Behe's) assumption that evolution occurs as a simple, linear addition of components. It doesn't happen that way. Life is much more messy.

Here is an analogy that may help illustrate what I mean:

Say you have a system composed of components A+B+C+D. This system is not, let's say, I.C.

Then a component is added. A+B+C+D+E. Clearly this is not I.C. either, since it would work without the E.

After a while, either because of modification of components or because E is redundant with another component, a component drops out.

Let's say we now have A+B+D+E.

Now, this system, by Behe's definition, may very well be irreducibly complex, in that you can't delete a component without the system failing. But, it could still evolve, hypothetically. Therefore, the argument that I.C. MUST indicate I.D. is false.

quote:
But ID can be identified by other means also. One major area of such identification would be (although off-topic), the cosmological anthropic principle: why are the constants of the universe so finely tuned to support life on this planet?

You have it backwards.

Life evolved according to the laws of nature. If the laws were different, life wouldn't have occurred, or wouldn't be the same as it is now.

quote:
Is it reasonable to suppose that this is the result either of chance or of some as yet unknown natural law?

It is just as reasonable to suppose the above as it is to suppose an omnipotent, all-powerful God created everything, at least in terms of the evidence.

What is your positive evidence for ID?

This is still the same God of the Gaps fallacy; "we don't have an explanation, therefore Godidit."

quote:
Don't mind me giving these explanations.. you may very well be aware of them or know more about them than me... but am just clarifying my position before beginning this discussion

No problem at all.

quote:
Now regarding your (1) point, the thing is we understand the system fully. That is exactly why we are saying that its irreducibly complex. We know that the system X needs components A,B,C,D to effectively function such as the removal of even one component ceases the function of the entire system.

What you so far have not been able to show is that IC systems cannot evolve naturally.

quote:
Regarding your (2) point which is completely unpredictable. You're saying that we, at the present time, don't possess the intelligence to understand such systems. You may be right.. who knows, may be in the future we can understand the system better and draw out the evolutionary pathways.

Exactly. However, if it's decided that bacterium flagella are IC, so they must be intelligently designed, then what is the point of doing research on the evolutionary history of them. What if someone comes along and finds the intermediate structure someday, just as the evolutionary pathway for blood clotting was found?

quote:
But using your own logic, it is also possible for the opposite to be true.

The opposite to be true? That we have so much intelligence that we will be able to understand everything in the universe?

quote:
We don't know. Anything is possible. But this is irrelevant to the present argument. We can make good predictions... but for the moment let us rely on the evidence at hand.

No, this point is vitally relevant to the present argument!

All your argument boils down to is because we don't understand how something could have evolved, it HAD to have been intelligently-designed.

Well, what if there is something that is just too difficult for the human intellect to understand, now or in the future?

Is it intelligently-designed simply because we do not understand it?

God of the Gaps.

quote:
One more thing... your (2) is quite noteworthy at the same time since it proves that ID/IC is a "scientific theory" which carries the potential to be falsified.

NO, ID/IC is not scientific at all because there is no positive evidence. It relies on an absenceof evolutionary evidence rather than providing any positive evidence for itself. At best, it is a philosophical argument.

If one is in keeping with scientific tennets, there can always be something we haven't thought of with regards to a problem. This is tentativity.

By contrast, Behe's IC/ID states that there is an end point in which we do not have to keep thinking. This is not science.

quote:
What do you think about people who would do something as blatantly dishonest and manipulative as this? Do you now doubt any of the other quotes or information on this site, now that you know that they do not mind lying and misrepresenting other people's words?

quote:
I understand what you're trying to say. For the record, I trust only a very few websites. It's sort of my fault because at that time I was carried away. I will try not repeating it in the future. To err is man. And I do agree with you. There are some extremely biased creationist websites which quote such "out-of-context" quotes and mislead people. But you can't deny the existence of certain evolutionist websites that do that too. The former practising it more.. I have to say. But anyways.. this won't happen in the future Insha Allah.

I don't know of pro-science websites which take Creationists out of context. Can you post some links to some?

Anyway, it sounds like you might have learned something about the lack of integrity of some people who claim to be speaking for God.

quote:
Have you contacted the site where you got the quote from to let them know that the end of the sentence was chopped off, changing it's meaning completely? If so, have they changed anything on the site?

quote:
For the record, I don't remember what site I got it from. I'll look for it. But do you really think they will change once I inform them. I really do doubt that. The thing is.. I got so mad I removed the site from my favorites. But if you really want.. I can look for it again (which I really don't want to).

Thank you, but you are right, they probably won't change their lies.

Anger at being misled is a good thing. Let it be a begining for a healthy skepticism in your life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Ahmad, posted 12-02-2002 5:47 AM Ahmad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Ahmad, posted 12-03-2002 11:20 AM nator has responded

    
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 63 (25347)
12-03-2002 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by nator
12-02-2002 12:48 PM


quote:
In this sense, it is true that natural selection "designs", by favoring individuals with certain variations to reproduce more sucessfully than others in a given environment.

I really don't think Natural Selection designs anything. Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs [macroevolution](Noble, et al., Parasitology, sixth edition, "Evolution of Parasitism," Lea and Febiger, 1989, p. 516). In other words, it's a principle of local adaptation.. it does not add any new information to the genome. Same goes for variation which are nothing but the outcomes of different combinations of the already existing genetic information and they do not add any new characteristic to the genetic information. I don't see how it can design anything.

quote:
Why do IC systems indicate ID? Where is your evidence that IC systems cannot occur naturally?

You're probably asking the same question as mark. Notice the definition. ALL components need to be present for the system to effectively function. Systems (IF) evolving by natural selection or random mutation.. are not IC.

quote:
Here is an analogy that may help illustrate what I mean:

Say you have a system composed of components A+B+C+D. This system is not, let's say, I.C.

Then a component is added. A+B+C+D+E. Clearly this is not I.C. either, since it would work without the E.

After a while, either because of modification of components or because E is redundant with another component, a component drops out.

Let's say we now have A+B+D+E.

Now, this system, by Behe's definition, may very well be irreducibly complex, in that you can't delete a component without the system failing. But, it could still evolve, hypothetically. Therefore, the argument that I.C. MUST indicate I.D. is false.


Excellent analogy. Ofcourse, IC completely breaks down the linear darwinian evolution (change along a single axis), the analogy you put up is known as Elimination of Functional Redundancy sort-of. Now this analogy ,however, involves some sleight of hand. Originally you proposed ABCD as a non-IC. So that means if one of the components from ABCD goes off, the system will continue to function. Surprisingly, what you did is added up a component E (all out of the blue) and the system continues to perform its original function. Now this may sound very casual in such analogies, but are highly improbable in real life. From where exactly and how does component E come here? Thats the main question. Even if this component E comes, all out of the blue, what are the chances that this will contribute to the system's function. The base of your analogy fails here. If you would just change your analogy to like... the components ABCD needs system X to function and the system is not IC. One of the components disappears, say C, disappears but the system maintains its function. But now its irreducibly complex. But even this analogy seems to be highly unlikely, I'm afraid, to explain the evolution of IC systems. You can check my responses to Primordial egg, on the same forum ID, "how do we know its irreducible" thread, for details.

quote:
You have it backwards.

Life evolved according to the laws of nature. If the laws were different, life wouldn't have occurred, or wouldn't be the same as it is now.


I would have second thoughts to the veracity of that explanation taking in account the just-perfect universe, the "design" in nature, the excellent coordination in IC/ID systems. It just fills me with awe and wonder...

quote:
It is just as reasonable to suppose the above as it is to suppose an omnipotent, all-powerful God created everything, at least in terms of the evidence.

The latter seems to be more plausible to me

quote:
What is your positive evidence for ID?

You're probably asking the same question as Eugenie scott did. She had an excellent response from Dembski here. I think Dembski sums it perfectly with an analogy:

"What about the positive evidence for intelligent design? It seems that here we may be getting to the heart of Eugenie Scott’s concerns. I submit that there is indeed positive evidence for intelligent design. To see this, let’s consider an example that I recycle endlessly in my writings (if only because its force seems continually lost on Darwinists). Consider the movie Contact that appeared summer of 1997, based on the novel by Carl Sagan. In the movie radio astronomers determine that they have established contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence after they receive a long sequence of prime numbers, represented as a sequence of bits.

Although in the actual SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio astronomers look not for something as flamboyant as prime numbers but something much more plebeian, namely, a narrow bandwidth of transmissions (as occur with human radio transmissions), the point nonetheless remains that SETI researchers would legitimately count a sequence of prime numbers (and less flamboyantly though just as assuredly a narrow bandwidth transmission) as positive evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. No such conclusive signal has yet been observed, but I can assure you that if it were to be observed, Eugenie Scott would not be complaining about SETI not having proposed any “testable models.” Instead she would rejoice that the model had been tested and decisively confirmed.

Now what’s significant about a sequence of prime numbers from outer space is that they exhibit specified complexity--there has to be a long sequence (hence complexity) and it needs to display an independently given pattern (hence specificity). But what if specified complexity is also exhibited in actual biological systems? In fact it is--notably in the bacterial flagellum. Internet mavens have been pestering me for actual calculations of complexity involved in such systems. I address this in my forthcoming book (No Free Lunch), but such calculations are out there in the literature (cf. the work of Hubert Yockey, Robert Sauer, Peter Rüst, Paul Erbrich, Siegfried Scherer, and most recently Douglas Axe--I’m not enlisting these individuals as design advocates but merely pointing out that methods for determining specified complexity are already part of biology).

Even so, it appears that Eugenie Scott would not be entirely happy admitting that intelligent design is positively confirmed once some clear-cut instances of specified complexity are discovered in biological systems. Why not? As she put it in her U.C. Berkeley lecture, design theorists “never tell you what happened.” Well, neither do SETI researchers. If a SETI researcher discovers a radio transmission of prime numbers from outer space, the inference to an extraterrestrial intelligence is clear, but the researcher doesn’t know “what happened” in the sense of knowing any details about the radio transmitter or for that matter the extraterrestrial that transmitted the radio transmission.

Ah, but we have experience with radio transmitters. At least with extraterrestrial intelligences we can guess what might have happened. But we don’t have any experience with unembodied designers, and that’s clearly what we’re dealing with when it comes to design in biology. Actually, if an unembodied designer is responsible for biological complexity, then we do have quite a bit of experience with such a designer through the designed objects (not least ourselves) that confront us all the time. On the other hand, it is true that we possess very little insight at this time into how such a designer acted to bring about the complex biological systems that have emerged over the course of natural history.

Darwinists take this present lack of insight into the workings of an unembodied designer not as remediable ignorance on our part and not as evidence that the designer’s capacities far outstrip ours, but as proof that there is no unembodied designer (at least none relevant to biology). By the same token, if an extraterrestrial intelligence communicated via radio signals with earth and solved computational problems that exceeded anything an ordinary or quantum computer could ever solve, we would have to conclude that we weren’t really dealing with an intelligence because we have no experience of super-mathematicians that can solve such problems. My own view is that with respect to biological design humans are in the same position as William James’s dog studying James while James was reading a book in his library. Our incomprehension over biological design is the incomprehension of a dog trying to understand its master’s actions. Interestingly, the biological community regularly sings the praises of natural selection and the wonders it has wrought while admitting that it has no comprehension of how those wonders were wrought. Natural selection, we are assured, is cleverer than we are or can ever hope to be. Darwinists have merely swapped one form of awe for another. They’ve not eliminated it.

It is no objection at all that we don’t at this time know how an unembodied designer produced a biological system that exhibits specified complexity. We know that specified complexity is reliably correlated with the effects of intelligence. The only reason to insist on looking for non-telic explanations to explain the complex specified structures in biology is because of prior commitment to naturalism that perforce excludes unembodied designers. It is illegitimate, scientifically and rationally, to claim on a priori grounds that such entities do not exist, or if they do exist that they can have no conceivable relevance to what happens in the world. Do such entities exist? Can they have empirical consequences? Are they relevant to what happens in the world? Such questions cannot be prejudged except on metaphysical grounds. To prejudge these questions the way Eugenie Scott does is therefore to make certain metaphysical commitments about what there is and what has the capacity to influence events in the world. Such commitments are utterly gratuitous to the practice of science. Specified complexity confirms design regardless whether the designer responsible for it is embodied or unembodied."

quote:
This is still the same God of the Gaps fallacy; "we don't have an explanation, therefore Godidit."

Oh but we do have the explanation. We know how the system works and functions, we know the role of the components in the system, and thus we come to the conclusion that the system is IC. That explanation, though not complete, is sufficient to indicate problems with postulating completely naturalistic explanations. Ratzsch, a philosopher, points out that "God-of-the-Gaps" is a pejorative
label that arbitrarily refuses in principle to recognise that there
may be gaps in the fabric of natural causation:

"Appeals to divine intelligent activity are often pejoratively
labeled `God of the gaps-explanation'....But such objections do not
seem compelling. If there are no gaps in the fabric of natural
causation, then obviously appeal to divine activity will get us off
track. On the other hand, if there are such gaps, refusing on
principle to recognize them within science will equally get us off
track. We should perhaps be wary of both ways of going wrong. If in
our intellectual endeavors we are attempting to get at truth as best
we can, then if we have rational reason-from whatever source-to
believe that God has taken a hand in the origin or ongoing operation
of the cosmos, arbitrarily excluding that belief needs some
justification." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why
Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove, Ill., 1996, pp193-194).

quote:
What you so far have not been able to show is that IC systems cannot evolve naturally.

What "natural means" do you postulate for the evolution of IC systems? Go here nad tell me how many "naturalistic explanations" sound familiar.

quote:
Exactly. However, if it's decided that bacterium flagella are IC, so they must be intelligently designed, then what is the point of doing research on the evolutionary history of them. What if someone comes along and finds the intermediate structure someday, just as the evolutionary pathway for blood clotting was found?

IC systems are open for all kinds of research. Just because we say the system is intelligently designed (since it's IC) does not close the room for further research. No way.. no how. And what exactly is the "evolutionary pathway" discovered recently for blooding clotting cascade?

quote:
The opposite to be true? That we have so much intelligence that we will be able to understand everything in the universe?

Now when did I say that? All I am saying is that anything is possible...

quote:
No, this point is vitally relevant to the present argument!

All your argument boils down to is because we don't understand how something could have evolved, it HAD to have been intelligently-designed.

Well, what if there is something that is just too difficult for the human intellect to understand, now or in the future?

Is it intelligently-designed simply because we do not understand it?

God of the Gaps.


Hey.. if evolutionists can't explain how IC systems evolved, why are we supposed to be blamed for that? We know the system is unevolvable in our present knowledge. If pathways are discovered, then we can deal with them. As far as I know, no valid evolutionary pathway has yet been discovered for any IC system. And exactly how and in what basis do you make such a prediction?

Using your own logic, If an atheist says God doesn't exist because we have no evidence for His existence, I can call his claim a "claim of the gaps" or if he bases an argument, an "argument from incredulity". After all, who knows, we might stumble on some evidence, in the future, that proves His existence beyond the shadow of a doubt. Ofcourse, then my atheist brethren will accuse me of tossing pascal's wager, now won't they?

quote:
NO, ID/IC is not scientific at all because there is no positive evidence. It relies on an absenceof evolutionary evidence rather than providing any positive evidence for itself. At best, it is a philosophical argument.

No it isn't. ID/IC is fully scientific and eligible to be called a "theory" just as evolution. We have positive evidence for them (IC). "Absence of evolutionary pathways" is irrelevant since evolution, itself, is a theory.

quote:
If one is in keeping with scientific tennets, there can always be something we haven't thought of with regards to a problem. This is tentativity.

By contrast, Behe's IC/ID states that there is an end point in which we do not have to keep thinking. This is not science.


Incorrect. If we conclude, from research, that a system is IC (therefore ID), it does not close the room for further thoughts and research. We can, then, utilize the research to find out the system's counter-parts... whether the system can work with other components or even evolutionists are free to explore the nature of the system and draw their conclusions. How does it establish an "end-point"? How does it violate the principle of tentativity?

quote:
Anger at being misled is a good thing. Let it be a begining for a healthy skepticism in your life.

Ah... thanks for the advice. Point noted

Regards,
Ahmad

[This message has been edited by Ahmad, 12-03-2002]

[This message has been edited by Ahmad, 12-03-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 12-02-2002 12:48 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 12-04-2002 5:33 PM Ahmad has responded
 Message 6 by nator, posted 12-05-2002 4:07 PM Ahmad has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Zhimbo, posted 12-05-2002 4:28 PM Ahmad has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3239 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 63 (25468)
12-04-2002 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Ahmad
12-03-2002 11:20 AM


Schraf, Ahmad, this is a reply to Ahmad from "IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont.." that basically runs parallel to this one. So it made sense to post the reply here rather than make Ahmad repeat himself.

Ahmad,

quote:
Mark:
Data that positively shows that IC systems can’t evolve.

quote:
Ahmad:
I gave you the data with examples.

No you didn’t, Ahmad. Not at all. Not for what I asked, anyway.

quote:

The eamples I have provided previously serve as the evidence of the non-evolvablility of such systems. If you can show how they evolve, then fine and dandy with me. You're on denial no matter how many evidence is given..

Well, I must have missed it. Please could you cut n’ paste your best evidence that POSITIVELY shows the non-evolvability of IC systems. When doing so, please avoid the arguments from definition, unbacked assertions, & arguments from incredulity. All you have done is show me complex things & basically told me, there, it’s IC & it COULDN’T have evolved. This is not positive evidence. All you have given me fall into the above categories. Care to try again?

Do you understand the difference between positive & negative evidence? Positive evidence is not defined as “there, that’s good evidence, I’m positive!” It provides a testable observation in support of a contention, again, nothing you have provided has. “That complex thing is too complex & IC to evolve” is not a testable observation that supports your contention, it is an assertion. Your contention is that IC cannot evolve, so, the testable observation that it can't please.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-04-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Ahmad, posted 12-03-2002 11:20 AM Ahmad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Ahmad, posted 12-09-2002 12:18 PM mark24 has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 213 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 6 of 63 (25620)
12-05-2002 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Ahmad
12-03-2002 11:20 AM


edited to remove redundancy with post 7

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-05-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Ahmad, posted 12-03-2002 11:20 AM Ahmad has not yet responded

    
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 4055 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 7 of 63 (25622)
12-05-2002 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Ahmad
12-03-2002 11:20 AM


Ahmad

You can consider this Schraf's response, as well. It is, in fact, in part her response. I just started writing a response as well, and instead of duplicating effort, there's just this post. We're pretty cozy.

quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:
quote:
In this sense, it is true that natural selection "designs", by favoring individuals with certain variations to reproduce more sucessfully than others in a given environment.

I really don't think Natural Selection designs anything. Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs [macroevolution](Noble, et al., Parasitology, sixth edition, "Evolution of Parasitism," Lea and Febiger, 1989, p. 516).


This sounds out of context. And I could, I'm sure you agree, find a contradictory quote. So let's not trade quotes that are just summary assertions, let's look at evidence.

And besides, how is mutation and gene duplication or copying errors not new information? They are not the same as they were before and they do different things. How is this not new?

quote:
In other words, it's a principle of local adaptation.. it does not add any new information to the genome.

So what do you think of bacteria which have developed the ability to digest nylon?

quote:
Same goes for variation which are nothing but the outcomes of different combinations of the already existing genetic information and they do not add any new characteristic to the genetic information. I don't see how it can design anything.

Nylon digestion?

quote:
Why do IC systems indicate ID? Where is your evidence that IC systems cannot occur naturally?

quote:
You're probably asking the same question as mark.

Yep.

quote:
Notice the definition. ALL components need to be present for the system to effectively function. Systems (IF) evolving by natural selection or random mutation.. are not IC.

So, you consider systems ID until they are proven otherwise? This is backwards to the way science is done. And again, there's a leap of reasoning between the two sentences above. The second sentence is just an assertion, it doesn't logically follow from the first sentence.

quote:
Here is an analogy that may help illustrate what I mean:

Say you have a system composed of components A+B+C+D. This system is not, let's say, I.C.

Then a component is added. A+B+C+D+E. Clearly this is not I.C. either, since it would work without the E.

After a while, either because of modification of components or because E is redundant with another component, a component drops out.

Let's say we now have A+B+D+E.

Now, this system, by Behe's definition, may very well be irreducibly complex, in that you can't delete a component without the system failing. But, it could still evolve, hypothetically. Therefore, the argument that I.C. MUST indicate I.D. is false.


quote:
Excellent analogy. Ofcourse, IC completely breaks down the linear darwinian evolution (change along a single axis), the analogy you put up is known as Elimination of Functional Redundancy sort-of. Now this analogy ,however, involves some sleight of hand. Originally you proposed ABCD as a non-IC. So that means if one of the components from ABCD goes off, the system will continue to function. Surprisingly, what you did is added up a component E (all out of the blue) and the system continues to perform its original function. Now this may sound very casual in such analogies, but are highly improbable in real life. From where exactly and how does component E come here? Thats the main question. [etc...]

No, that's not the main question. That's another, new, question. The question at hand is: Does I.C. logically imply I.D.? It is NOT "Can new, useful components form?" Certainly, Behe does not deny this. He believes in macroevolutionary change, and he does NOT believe that ALL systems are I.C. The logic of I.C. does not depend on denying the addition of components.

The logic of I.C. DOES depend on ignoring alternative evolutionary paths. As soon as you admit that other paths are possible, you abandon all logical force of I.C. --> I.D. Instead, if you still want to criticize evolution, you can try saying that new components can't form, etc. But that's a new issue. You've abandonded the general I.C. argument, and are now forced to argue the specific details of specific evolutionary pathways. Before moving on to that, would you agree that the argument that I.C. means I.D. (or at least non-evolvable) fails if other paths, other than simple addition of components, are possible?

quote:

quote:
You have it backwards.

Life evolved according to the laws of nature. If the laws were different, life wouldn't have occurred, or wouldn't be the same as it is now.


I would have second thoughts to the veracity of that explanation taking in account the just-perfect universe, the "design" in nature, the excellent coordination in IC/ID systems. It just fills me with awe and wonder...



Awe and wonder aren't under debate, of course! But now you're just using the "Argument from Personal Incredulity", not presenting positive evidence.

quote:

quote:
What is your positive evidence for ID?

You're probably asking the same question as Eugenie scott did. She had an excellent response from Dembski here. I think Dembski sums it perfectly with an analogy:



This is a little too much to go into just now. I don't know, without closer inspection, whether this contains any new arguments from Dembski or not...it is, in principle, different from Behe's "irreducible complexity", and so needs a different response than the above. Get back to it later.

quote:
This is still the same God of the Gaps fallacy; "we don't have an explanation, therefore Godidit."

quote:

Oh but we do have the explanation. We know how the system works and functions, we know the role of the components in the system, and thus we come to the conclusion that the system is IC. That explanation, though not complete, is sufficient to indicate problems with postulating completely naturalistic explanations.

There's no "explanation", there. You have not "explained" how the I.C. system has been produced. You have said, "Godidit".

quote:

Ratzsch, a philosopher, points out that "God-of-the-Gaps" is a pejorative
label that arbitrarily refuses in principle to recognise that there
may be gaps in the fabric of natural causation:
[book quote deleted]


If there are "gaps in the fabric of natural causation", then science doesn't apply. I would argue that reason doesn't apply. If you let "magical explanations" have equal footing, then you just have to give up trying to explain. That's what's wrong with "God of the Gaps" - it pretends to be an explanation, but it's really only a name ("Intelligent Designer"), and an obstacle to real explanations.

quote:

quote:
What you so far have not been able to show is that IC systems cannot evolve naturally.

What "natural means" do you postulate for the evolution of IC systems? Go here nad tell me how many "naturalistic explanations" sound familiar.

quote:
Exactly. However, if it's decided that bacterium flagella are IC, so they must be intelligently designed, then what is the point of doing research on the evolutionary history of them. What if someone comes along and finds the intermediate structure someday, just as the evolutionary pathway for blood clotting was found?

IC systems are open for all kinds of research. Just because we say the system is intelligently designed (since it's IC) does not close the room for further research. No way.. no how. And what exactly is the "evolutionary pathway" discovered recently for blooding clotting cascade?


A reference to the literature:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=88295781&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r

An interesting comment From:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/icsic.html

quote:

"This bears repeating: urochordates have a functional complement system, yet they lack a component of the cascade, C3 convertase, which is essential in the same cascade in vertebrates. Recall Dr. Behe's quote at the beginning of this essay: "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional". This example of an irreducibly complex complement cascade that is clearly the result of Darwinian evolution belies Dr. Behe's claim."

Other reading on Behe and blood clotting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

quote:
quote:

God of the Gaps.


Hey.. if evolutionists can't explain how IC systems evolved, why are we supposed to be blamed for that? We know the system is unevolvable in our present knowledge. If pathways are discovered, then we can deal with them. As far as I know, no valid evolutionary pathway has yet been discovered for any IC system. And exactly how and in what basis do you make such a prediction?

Using your own logic, If an atheist says God doesn't exist because we have no evidence for His existence, I can call his claim a "claim of the gaps" or if he bases an argument, an "argument from incredulity". After all, who knows, we might stumble on some evidence, in the future, that proves His existence beyond the shadow of a doubt. Ofcourse, then my atheist brethren will accuse me of tossing pascal's wager, now won't they?


Your criticism is absolutely correct. It seems you think I'd disagree with it. I agree with it perfectly, and think that PRECISELY THE SAME ARGUMENT applies to I.D.

quote:

quote:
NO, ID/IC is not scientific at all because there is no positive evidence. It relies on an absenceof evolutionary evidence rather than providing any positive evidence for itself. At best, it is a philosophical argument.

No it isn't. ID/IC is fully scientific and eligible to be called a "theory" just as evolution. We have positive evidence for them (IC). "Absence of evolutionary pathways" is irrelevant since evolution, itself, is a theory.

quote:
If one is in keeping with scientific tenets, there can always be something we haven't thought of with regards to a problem. This is tentativity.

By contrast, Behe's IC/ID states that there is an end point in which we do not have to keep thinking. This is not science.




quote:

Incorrect. If we conclude, from research, that a system is IC (therefore ID), it does not close the room for further thoughts and research. We can, then, utilize the research to find out the system's counter-parts... whether the system can work with other components or even evolutionists are free to explore the nature of the system and draw their conclusions. How does it establish an "end-point"? How does it violate the principle of tentativity?

Certainly none of these research are generated by I.D. Furthermore, I.D. tells you NOT to look for possible evolutionary pathways. None of your research questions arise from I.D., but you do close off a topic as "unproductive". This is why I.D. is stifling to research, not productive. Can you name one research question generated by I.D., that we wouldn't have thought of without it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Ahmad, posted 12-03-2002 11:20 AM Ahmad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Ahmad, posted 12-07-2002 1:49 PM Zhimbo has responded

  
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 63 (25825)
12-07-2002 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Zhimbo
12-05-2002 4:28 PM


Hi Zhimbo,

quote:
This sounds out of context. And I could, I'm sure you agree, find a contradictory quote. So let's not trade quotes that are just summary assertions, let's look at evidence.

OK, but the quote is just what I wanted to say. Natural Selection "selects".. it does not "design" anything.

quote:
And besides, how is mutation and gene duplication or copying errors not new information? They are not the same as they were before and they do different things. How is this not new?

They are not new, in the sense, that there is no increase in the specified complexity of the organism. Mutation may produce "new" traits but at the expense of information loss. It does not create "new" information, thus zero net increase in the specified complexity. Gene duplication would have been a good case, if it indeed took place. If it did take place, then there should be evidence of numerous old duplicated-but-unused genes all over the genome. "Junk DNA" failed the test since they have been rendered as an essential constituent of cell division.

Even if gene duplication did take place, how does it add "new" information? Do you have "new" information if you make two copies of the same newpaper? No! Its virtually the "same" information as the previous.

quote:
So what do you think of bacteria which have developed the ability to digest nylon?

I have read about this in an article from a journal, but I can't seem to find it. I do remember what the article said. The ability of bacteria to digest nylon is due to a plasmid. This suggests that the information probably already existed, and was just passed between different types of bacteria. All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity (aka loss of information) in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. There is no "information" gain here but information loss that causes this.

quote:
So, you consider systems ID until they are proven otherwise? This is backwards to the way science is done.

This is in exact concordance with science. This shows that ID, like all other scientific theories, is falsifiable, as well as verifiable.

quote:
No, that's not the main question. That's another, new, question. The question at hand is: Does I.C. logically imply I.D.?

Yes, IC implies ID. If you deny that, there's an awful magnitude of naturalistic coincidences that you have to have faith on.

quote:
It is NOT "Can new, useful components form?" Certainly, Behe does not deny this. He believes in macroevolutionary change, and he does NOT believe that ALL systems are I.C. The logic of I.C. does not depend on denying the addition of components.

You are right in pointing out that Behe is a theistic evolutionist and has no problem with common descent. However, my previous question (that you did not paste) is important. What is the probability that this "additional" component will contribute to the system's function such that one of the previous components of the system becoming redundant will fall of and the system together with the additional component will become irreducibly complex? Perhaps, this gives rise to a whole set of new questions. To begin with, how does this explain the "origin" and the "evolution" of irreducibly complex systems if systems, like the one outlined by schraf, were already in a "complex" state?? Isn't the proposed evolutionary trend supposed to be simple to complex?

quote:
The logic of I.C. DOES depend on ignoring alternative evolutionary paths. As soon as you admit that other paths are possible, you abandon all logical force of I.C. --> I.D. Instead, if you still want to criticize evolution, you can try saying that new components can't form, etc. But that's a new issue. You've abandonded the general I.C. argument, and are now forced to argue the specific details of specific evolutionary pathways.

With all due respect, I have not. IC argument still stands and I did not go off-topic. Give me evolutionary pathways, if they exist. You did not do that but just supposedly predicted the "aftermath" once evolutionary pathways have been proposed. And I must argue the "specific details" of the veracity evolutionary pathways you are proposing since it is in the details that this supposed evolutionary pathway breaks down. The main IC argument is directly linked with it.

quote:
Before moving on to that, would you agree that the argument that I.C. means I.D. (or at least non-evolvable) fails if other paths, other than simple addition of components, are possible?

Yes I agree. However, I must question the various predictions of the pathway and how it confers to the "evolution" of IC systems.

quote:
Awe and wonder aren't under debate, of course! But now you're just using the "Argument from Personal Incredulity", not presenting positive evidence.

Oh that wasn't an argument, just my personal conviction. Make an exception for that, if you're looking for "positive evidence". The positive evidence for creation (at the top of my mind) would be Intelligent Design in nature, Irreducible Complexity in systems, Anthropic Principle and cambrian explosion.

quote:
This is a little too much to go into just now. I don't know, without closer inspection, whether this contains any new arguments from Dembski or not...it is, in principle, different from Behe's "irreducible complexity", and so needs a different response than the above. Get back to it later.

Yes, it is quite different from IC but since you're responding on behalf on schraf, it makes a good answer to his question, "What is the positive evidence for ID?".

quote:
There's no "explanation", there. You have not "explained" how the I.C. system has been produced. You have said, "Godidit".

Gee, why do you make "Godidit" sound so dogmatic and unrealistic? In my opinion, those claiming non-evolvability of IC systems via natural causes believed in a Creator, they would look more seriously at how it actually works instead of disparaging what in reality no one really understands.

Dembski discussed this point in his paper recently:

‘But design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term “junk”. Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as “junk” merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how “non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development.” Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.’

quote:
If there are "gaps in the fabric of natural causation", then science doesn't apply. I would argue that reason doesn't apply. If you let "magical explanations" have equal footing, then you just have to give up trying to explain. That's what's wrong with "God of the Gaps" - it pretends to be an explanation, but it's really only a name ("Intelligent Designer"), and an obstacle to real explanations.

No it isn't. Real explanations are encouraged by the apparent design in nature that apparently points to an intelligent designer. For example, if SETI detects a streaming set of intelligent codes being signalled from outer space, it would point to the existence of an "intelligent sender". Do you really think SETI will just say "aliensdidit" and close the entire topic? Ofcourse not! Investigations, crytopgraphy, decoders, detecting patterns, functions of the specific codes, denotions etc will all put into full use in full force to crack the meaning of the code, for surely they know that it for some "purpose". Same goes for intelligent design. If we admit intelligent design into science, it will foster and open the doors for a whole range of inquiry and investigations unlike evolution which sets a full-stop once they find something "appearing" non-functional and vestigial.

quote:
A reference to the literature:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=88295781&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r

I see Dr. Doolittle changing tracks here. Last time I heard, he claimed that mice went along fine with the elimination of to components of the blood-clotting cascades (which Behe refuted). Lets see the fate of this article..

quote:
An interesting comment From:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/icsic.html

The only interesting commment, in my opinion, is the paraphrase of Dr. Orr but Coon, "Darwinian evolution can easily produce irreducible complexity: all that's required is that parts that were once just favorable become, because of later changes, essential."

This is called "Original Helping Activity" (OHA) and Gene nicely points out how this explanation is "fatally flawed".

quote:
Other reading on Behe and blood clotting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Behe's response, In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller, and Keith Robison.

quote:
Your criticism is absolutely correct. It seems you think I'd disagree with it. I agree with it perfectly, and think that PRECISELY THE SAME ARGUMENT applies to I.D.

You may agree with it, but does the majority? Lets do a poll, how many atheists out there agrees with you? Does schraf agree?

Even if everyone agrees with this notion, does it not entitle ID to be science, that is capable of falsifiability? It sure does, in my opinion

quote:
Certainly none of these research are generated by I.D. Furthermore, I.D. tells you NOT to look for possible evolutionary pathways.

Who says so? ID fosters inquiry, as Dembski points out. The SETI analogy, I gave you earlier, perfectly implies this notion. And besides, just as naturalistic evolutionists tells you NOT to "allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Levontin), what difference do you expect to find with your notion of ID? Ofcourse, ID is both for creationists as well as evolutionists, even though they don't accept it.

quote:
None of your research questions arise from I.D., but you do close off a topic as "unproductive". This is why I.D. is stifling to research, not productive. Can you name one research question generated by I.D., that we wouldn't have thought of without it?

Irrelevant. I am pointing out that ID is not an obstacle to science but it can enhance and foster scientific progress where evolution puts a full-stop. But if you insist, design in living organisms is something that was generated from ID. Design denotes purpose and everything that exists, has a purpose.

Regards,
Ahmad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Zhimbo, posted 12-05-2002 4:28 PM Zhimbo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Zhimbo, posted 12-23-2002 3:48 PM Ahmad has not yet responded

  
Nic Tamzek
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 63 (25835)
12-07-2002 4:16 PM


Ahmad,

Regarding blood-clotting, more that you wanted to know is posted here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3df265b422d5ffff;act=ST;f=9;t=3

...look at all those juicy peer-reviewed refs that Behe said didn't exist.

Regarding Miller v. Behe, here is the summary of the back-and-forth as far as I have it:

In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade (July 31, 2000)
Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison
by Michael J. Behe
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=442

Design on the Defensive, (Fall (?) 2000)
Ken Miller's page responding to Behe's review of Miller's book
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/Design.html

(Ken Miller evolution page: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html)

Miller's response to Behe's (2000) "In defense of the IC of the Blood Clotting Cascade."
Introduction to Miller's argument on blood-clotting: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Clotting.html
...linked from Miller's 'Design on the Defensive' (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Design.html)

The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting
Miller's "original draft" (longer description than in the book) on the evolution of blood-clotting. Linked from the above reference: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

Comments on Ken Miller's Reply to My Essays (Behe, January 2001)
A response to Ken Miller, but blood-clotting isn't mentioned.
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=579

...but again, if you want the really stuff:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3df265b422d5ffff;act=ST;f=9;t=3


  
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 63 (26033)
12-09-2002 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mark24
12-04-2002 5:33 PM


quote:
Ahmad: I gave you the data with examples.
Mark: No you didn’t, Ahmad. Not at all. Not for what I asked, anyway.

I really don't understand why you're on denial whilst I gave you what was in my capacity. I have given you evidence, in the form of examples (flagella), and explained in detail (with the GIF image) how all the components are needed for it to function. That, as I see it, is unevolvable by the darwinian evolution. If you disagree, then I would ask you to provide YOUR evidence. But since, you constantly say I made the claim of the unevolvability of IC and you didn't do nothing, I gave the evidence that I think is more than enough.

quote:
Well, I must have missed it. Please could you cut n’ paste your best evidence that POSITIVELY shows the non-evolvability of IC systems. When doing so, please avoid the arguments from definition, unbacked assertions, & arguments from incredulity. All you have done is show me complex things & basically told me, there, it’s IC & it COULDN’T have evolved. This is not positive evidence. All you have given me fall into the above categories. Care to try again?

Since I don't understand your definition of positive evidence, I would like you to give me a positive evidence for evolution. That won't be part of the discussion ofcourse, but just so that I can get a glimpse of what exactly is the kind of positive evidence you're talking about.

quote:
Do you understand the difference between positive & negative evidence? Positive evidence is not defined as “there, that’s good evidence, I’m positive!” It provides a testable observation in support of a contention, again, nothing you have provided has. “That complex thing is too complex & IC to evolve” is not a testable observation that supports your contention, it is an assertion. Your contention is that IC cannot evolve, so, the testable observation that it can't please.

The positive evidence I provided previously is TESTABLE. The conclusion that a system is IC depends on its very definition. Evidence are in the examples provided.

If a valid evolutionary pathway can be shown to have existed in the aforementioned IC systems, then you win. Just as darwin provided the criteria for his theory to be falsified, IC also has the criterias for it to be falsified. It's a hypothesis.

Regards,
Ahmad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 12-04-2002 5:33 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 12-09-2002 2:03 PM Ahmad has responded
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 12-11-2002 7:34 AM Ahmad has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3239 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 63 (26041)
12-09-2002 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Ahmad
12-09-2002 12:18 PM


Ahmad,
quote:
I really don't understand why you're on denial whilst I gave you what was in my capacity. I have given you evidence, in the form of examples (flagella), and explained in detail (with the GIF image) how all the components are needed for it to function. That, as I see it, is unevolvable by the darwinian evolution. If you disagree, then I would ask you to provide YOUR evidence. But since, you constantly say I made the claim of the unevolvability of IC and you didn't do nothing, I gave the evidence that I think is more than enough.

This is getting frustrating. That you can’t see how a flagellum can’t evolve is not positive evidence. Have I denied that the flagellum ceases to function if a part is removed? You are conflating two things, Behe’s claim that IC exists, & that it therefore cannot evolve. I have no problem with the former. There is no evidence of the latter.

quote:
Since I don't understand your definition of positive evidence, I would like you to give me a positive evidence for evolution. That won't be part of the discussion ofcourse, but just so that I can get a glimpse of what exactly is the kind of positive evidence you're talking about.

Positive evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs is seen in the fossils of archaeopteryx, as predicted, it shares traits unique to both therapod reptiles & extant birds, & appears at the appropriate time in the fossil record.

This evidence “provides a testable observation” that supports a contention. It is positive evidence. That’s not to say that birds evolved from dinosaurs is absolutely, positively an incontrovertible fact, but that the hypothesis has positive evidence in its favour.

quote:
Mark:
Do you understand the difference between positive & negative evidence? Positive evidence is not defined as “there, that’s good evidence, I’m positive!” It provides a testable observation in support of a contention, again, nothing you have provided has. “That complex thing is too complex & IC to evolve” is not a testable observation that supports your contention, it is an assertion. Your contention is that IC cannot evolve, so, the testable observation that it can't please.

quote:
Ahmad: The positive evidence I provided previously is TESTABLE. The conclusion that a system is IC depends on its very definition. Evidence are in the examples provided.

Evidence for the existence of IC systems, not they couldn't evolve. IC I accept, but I see no positive, testable evidence that they cannot evolve, however. This is what I’ve been after all along.

I repeat:

“Please could you cut n’ paste your best evidence that POSITIVELY shows the non-evolvability of IC systems. When doing so, please avoid the arguments from definition, unbacked assertions, & arguments from incredulity. All you have done is show me complex things & basically told me, there, it’s IC & it COULDN’T have evolved. This is not positive evidence. All you have given me fall into the above categories. Care to try again?”

If I could just pre-empt you asking me for evidence that IC can evolve. "I have never claimed that IC systems evolved. There is only one person making a positive assertion regarding IC, & that’s you. If you think I’m making it up, take a look back through the posts & see if you can find me making an explicit claim that IC definitely evolved (in context). Given that this is the case, that you are making a claim & I'm not, it is for you to back up said claim."

Even if I had claimed that IC has evolved, you would still be making a logical fallacy; argumentum ad ignorantiam. Because evolution of IC systems hasn't been proven, therefore the contention that they did evolve is false.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Ahmad, posted 12-09-2002 12:18 PM Ahmad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 12-15-2002 7:37 PM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Ahmad, posted 12-18-2002 1:00 PM mark24 has responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 12 of 63 (26279)
12-11-2002 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Ahmad
12-09-2002 12:18 PM


I think the point being made is that suggesting that IC
is evidence of design is an argument from incredulity.

'I cannot believe that this intricate system could have evolved.'

is basically the claim being made in any IC related design
argument.

If anyone can come up with a feasible route for the development
of any IC then it fails as an argument ... and arguments from
incredulity are impossibly weak to begin with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Ahmad, posted 12-09-2002 12:18 PM Ahmad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Ahmad, posted 12-27-2002 1:08 PM Peter has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3239 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 13 of 63 (26673)
12-15-2002 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mark24
12-09-2002 2:03 PM


Bumpity bump...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 12-09-2002 2:03 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 63 (27222)
12-18-2002 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mark24
12-09-2002 2:03 PM


quote:
Positive evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs is seen in the fossils of archaeopteryx, as predicted, it shares traits unique to both therapod reptiles & extant birds, & appears at the appropriate time in the fossil record.

Positive evidence for IC is seen in the bacterial flagella, where all the components of the flagella are needed to make it perform its function, i.e, locomotion of the bacteria and it appears at the exact place where it is needed by the bacteria.

Regards,
Ahmad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 12-09-2002 2:03 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John, posted 12-18-2002 1:18 PM Ahmad has responded
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 12-18-2002 7:06 PM Ahmad has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 63 (27223)
12-18-2002 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Ahmad
12-18-2002 1:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:
Positive evidence for IC is seen in the bacterial flagella, where all the components of the flagella are needed to make it perform its function, i.e, locomotion of the bacteria and it appears at the exact place where it is needed by the bacteria.

But all of the components are not required for it to perform A function. This is a critical consideration and you seem to be missing it. Think about a car. Remove the wheels and you have destroyed its ability to function as a car, but it still functions as a shelter complete with heating and AC. Remove the AC; it still functions as a shelter against wind and rain. Remove the body, you still have a power station-- the engine-- that can be used to generate electricity by turning the alternator, and which could also turn any number of machines via the drive shaft. Remove the gasoline engine and you still have countless components that STILL FUNCTION as something, even though the whole is far from functioning as a car.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Ahmad, posted 12-18-2002 1:00 PM Ahmad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Ahmad, posted 12-27-2002 12:43 PM John has not yet responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019