Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9057 total)
83 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, kjsimons, MrIntelligentDesign, ramoss (5 members, 78 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,794 Year: 906/6,534 Month: 906/682 Week: 141/445 Day: 34/22 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreducible complexity- the challenges have been rebutted (if not refuted)
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 112 (1560)
01-04-2002 2:04 PM


To the sophist, irreducible complexity is post hoc gibberish. However, it is no more post hoc than any ToE. Or was the ToE formulated by the first population(s) of single-celled organisms? And for something sophists consider 'gibberish' it sure garners much attention.

In the following article Behe shows how weak the arguments against IR really are:

Behe answers his critics

However to keep the discussion simple we can discuss Behe's mousetrap and how it applies to IR (and minimal functionality). Behe's mousetrap consists of 5 parts:
1- a flat wooden platform to act as its base
2- a metal hammer which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse
3- a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged (set)
4- a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied
5- a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged
(there are also assorted staples to hold the system together)

According to Behe, the first step to determine if a system is IR is to ask if all the components are required for function. Not only are all the pieces of the aforementioned musetrap required, they have to be the correct size.

So what would a physical precursor to that mousetrap be? What would be its function?

Obviously there exist other types of mousetraps. That is not the point unless you can take one, and using Darwinian step-by-step processes, 'evolve' the 5 part mousetrap mentioned above, all the while maintaining minimal functionality.

Anyone?

------------------
John Paul

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-04-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by lbhandli, posted 01-04-2002 5:24 PM John Paul has responded
 Message 34 by Rei, posted 09-04-2003 7:10 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 112 (1567)
01-04-2002 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
01-04-2002 2:04 PM


First, a note, I've been away and any responses to me that went unanswered please refer them to me and I'll take a look.

John Paul, I hate to tell you this but no one says a mousetrap evolved. Perhaps you could discuss an actual biological system. The problem is that Behe uses the gaps of our knowledge (and sometimes he doens't even realize there isn't much of a gap) to claim goddidit. That is nice, but it isn't science skippy.

Cheers,
Larry


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 01-04-2002 2:04 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 01-04-2002 6:52 PM lbhandli has responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 112 (1569)
01-04-2002 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by lbhandli
01-04-2002 5:24 PM


Larry:
John Paul, I hate to tell you this but no one says a mousetrap evolved.

John Paul:
Aren't you the observant one. The point was if one could evolve, how would it in Darwinian step-by-step fashion?

Larry:
Perhaps you could discuss an actual biological system.

John Paul:
If you can't tackle something as basic as a 5 part (with staples) mousetrap what makes you think you can handle something as complex as a biological system?

Larry:
The problem is that Behe uses the gaps of our knowledge (and sometimes he doens't even realize there isn't much of a gap) to claim goddidit.

John Paul:
I don't think Behe cares whodonedidit. He just knows all materialistic naturalism scenarios have been found wanting. As a matter of fact he discusses them in the article I linked to. Do you think you can do what others have tried and failed to do? I'm listening.

Larry:
That is nice, but it isn't science skippy.

John Paul:
But declaring something did evolve via Darwinian step-by-step fashion, without substantiating evidence, is scientific- princess? Nice typical double standard.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by lbhandli, posted 01-04-2002 5:24 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by lbhandli, posted 01-05-2002 4:12 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 112 (1586)
01-05-2002 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
01-04-2002 6:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Larry:
John Paul, I hate to tell you this but no one says a mousetrap evolved.

John Paul:
Aren't you the observant one. The point was if one could evolve, how would it in Darwinian step-by-step fashion?


Clearly you aren't very observant. The point is that since it didn't evolve it wouldn't need to be able to occur through evolution. You see, the point was that you are comparing a complex object that is clearly not the result of evolution to complex biological systems that are capable of being produced by evolution.

quote:

Larry:
Perhaps you could discuss an actual biological system.

John Paul:
If you can't tackle something as basic as a 5 part (with staples) mousetrap what makes you think you can handle something as complex as a biological system?


Because the mouse trap isn't a biological organism and most importantly because it can't reproduce. You might think about such questions before asking.

quote:

Larry:
The problem is that Behe uses the gaps of our knowledge (and sometimes he doens't even realize there isn't much of a gap) to claim goddidit.

John Paul:
I don't think Behe cares whodonedidit. He just knows all materialistic naturalism scenarios have been found wanting. As a matter of fact he discusses them in the article I linked to. Do you think you can do what others have tried and failed to do? I'm listening.


Actually he hasn't. He has shown that our knowledge isn't perfect and claimed this lack of perfection points towards intelligent design. His challenge is to show there is no way for such systems to evolve. He has not shown that, he has shown that we don't fully understand those processes. Nothing in his work is a falsification of evolution even though he claims so. Also, does this mean you now accept common descent as Behe does?

quote:

Larry:
That is nice, but it isn't science skippy.

John Paul:
But declaring something did evolve via Darwinian step-by-step fashion, without substantiating evidence, is scientific- princess? Nice typical double standard.


No, I claim that these systems could evolve, we just don't fully understand them. I do however wonder when you will substantively respond to the evidence for macroevolution with more than a link. Especially a link using specious reasoning. It is based on that evidence that I conclude common descent occurs. All the evidence points toward evolution and so it is the scientific conclusion. So until you can actually respond substantively to something with more than a link, I'd be more circumspect about your claims. Being pithy is nice, but you can't back it up. And even funnier is you don't understand the argument you are claiming is true.

You don't seem to grasp the incredibly difficult job Behe set out for himself. His claim of evidence for design rests upon the inability of evolution to produce such outcomes. He hasn't shown that at all. His claims rest upon our ignorance of the specific processes and not upon some positive evidence for ID. IOW, he is using a god of the gaps argument instead of using the scientific process.

Cheers,
Larry


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 01-04-2002 6:52 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 01-05-2002 4:35 PM lbhandli has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20500
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 5 of 112 (1587)
01-05-2002 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by lbhandli
01-05-2002 4:12 PM



Larry writes:
Clearly you aren't very observant.

<ModeratorHat>
Ahem!
</ModeratorHat>

And welcome back!

If John Paul is a YEC, then I think inclusion of ID concepts may be an inconsistency in his perspective. Behe style ID is OEC. If the world is truly younger than 10,000 years then the amount of evolution occurring since creation is certainly little enough to not have crossed kind boundaries, in which case there's no need for Behe's IDer to initiate the evolutionary milestones he describes in his book, like propeller propulsion and blood coagulation.

--Percy

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-05-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by lbhandli, posted 01-05-2002 4:12 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by lbhandli, posted 01-05-2002 7:56 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 112 (1588)
01-05-2002 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
01-05-2002 4:35 PM


I think there is some room for John Paul here. If he could show that Behe is correct in terms of evolution not being able to provide IC systems, this would be a falsification of evolution. Not necessarily support for ID, but a falsification of the current theory at least.

Now, once this was done he would then have to have a rather long argument with old earthers and Behe in regards to common descent, but it would falsify the current theory.

The problem is that IC doesn't appear to be a falsification AFAICT...

It does make the discussion much messier, and John Paul should be expected to explain why he feels Behe is correct in regards to IC, but feels the evidence for common descent that Behe also accepts wrong.

Just some thoughts,
Larry
And thanks for the welcome back...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 01-05-2002 4:35 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 01-05-2002 8:18 PM lbhandli has responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 112 (1592)
01-05-2002 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by lbhandli
01-05-2002 7:56 PM


Larry:
I think there is some room for John Paul here. If he could show that Behe is correct in terms of evolution not being able to provide IC systems, this would be a falsification of evolution. Not necessarily support for ID, but a falsification of the current theory at least.

John Paul:
Behe is doing fine on his own. Further I don't care what anyone "accepts". I care what is the evidence. For all I know Behe "accepts" common descent because he wants to keep his job.

Larry:
The point is that since it didn't evolve it wouldn't need to be able to occur through evolution. You see, the point was that you are comparing a complex object that is clearly not the result of evolution to complex biological systems that are capable of being produced by evolution.

John Paul:
We could simulate evolution with our imagination, that is one thing evolutionists have plenty of so I don't understand the difficulty. Also I you assertion that "...complex biological systems that are capable of being produced by evolution", is what is under debate and far from a foregone conclusion.

Larry:
Because the mouse trap isn't a biological organism and most importantly because it can't reproduce. You might think about such questions before asking.

John Paul:
Maybe they don't reproduce themselves but on an assembly line they are reproduced. Add a little imagination, ie a variation due to mechanical wear of the assembly mechanisms (similar to what was presented in Darwin's Ghost) a 'mutated' version of the original was produced. Then you take it from there.

Larry:
No, I claim that these systems could evolve, we just don't fully understand them.

John Paul:
And others, including myself, claim they cannot and did not. Furtermore there is no evidence that shows they can never mind did. If you want to believe they can and did, fine. But understand it is a belief and therefore just as religious as the Creation PoV.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by lbhandli, posted 01-05-2002 7:56 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by lbhandli, posted 01-05-2002 8:32 PM John Paul has responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 112 (1593)
01-05-2002 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Paul
01-05-2002 8:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Larry:
I think there is some room for John Paul here. If he could show that Behe is correct in terms of evolution not being able to provide IC systems, this would be a falsification of evolution. Not necessarily support for ID, but a falsification of the current theory at least.

John Paul:
Behe is doing fine on his own. Further I don't care what anyone "accepts". I care what is the evidence. For all I know Behe "accepts" common descent because he wants to keep his job.


My understanding is he accepts it because he is a molecular biologist and finds the biomolecular evidence quite strong. I will also not, you refuse to address such evidence other than wishing it away.

quote:

Larry:
The point is that since it didn't evolve it wouldn't need to be able to occur through evolution. You see, the point was that you are comparing a complex object that is clearly not the result of evolution to complex biological systems that are capable of being produced by evolution.

John Paul:
We could simulate evolution with our imagination, that is one thing evolutionists have plenty of so I don't understand the difficulty. Also I you assertion that "...complex biological systems that are capable of being produced by evolution", is what is under debate and far from a foregone conclusion.


Not really. You think there is a question, and Behe asserts there is a question. Which IC system do you think is impossible by evolution? And why?

Hypothetical pathways are quite easy to think of and indeed, you haven't bothered to address the Doolittle work unless you did it while I was away. It has direct bearing on the subject and blood clotting.

quote:

Larry:
Because the mouse trap isn't a biological organism and most importantly because it can't reproduce. You might think about such questions before asking.

John Paul:
Maybe they don't reproduce themselves but on an assembly line they are reproduced. Add a little imagination, ie a variation due to mechanical wear of the assembly mechanisms (similar to what was presented in Darwin's Ghost) a 'mutated' version of the original was produced. Then you take it from there.


Cute, but really irrelevant since you are making an argument from analogy where the two items--complex biological systems and a mousetrap--aren't comparable on how they are produced. Complex biological systems are passed on by heredity and mousetraps are manufactured. How complex systems originally came about is open to some debate, but no one posits they were produced on an assembly line.

quote:

Larry:
No, I claim that these systems could evolve, we just don't fully understand them.

John Paul:
And others, including myself, claim they cannot and did not.


Why not? What is the barrier? Please be specific.

quote:

Furtermore there is no evidence that shows they can never mind did. If you want to believe they can and did, fine. But understand it is a belief and therefore just as religious as the Creation PoV.

Actually there is a great deal of evidence given Doolittle's work that traces the path of blood clotting. You've argued yourself into a perfect circle. Now, either you can explain why Doolittle's ideas are wrong from the paper or you really don't have an argument.

Cheers,
Larry


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 01-05-2002 8:18 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 01-07-2002 6:25 AM lbhandli has responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 112 (1620)
01-07-2002 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by lbhandli
01-05-2002 8:32 PM


Larry:
Hypothetical pathways are quite easy to think of and indeed, you haven't bothered to address the Doolittle work unless you did it while I was away. It has direct bearing on the subject and blood clotting.

John Paul:
Hypotheticals are not a substitute for real empirical evidence.

Larry:
Actually there is a great deal of evidence given Doolittle's work that traces the path of blood clotting. You've argued yourself into a perfect circle. Now, either you can explain why Doolittle's ideas are wrong from the paper or you really don't have an argument.

John Paul:
Behe's paper, which I linked to in my thread opening post, discusses Doolittle's work. Why should I re-do what has been done?

------------------
John Paul

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-07-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by lbhandli, posted 01-05-2002 8:32 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by lbhandli, posted 01-07-2002 1:43 PM John Paul has responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 112 (1653)
01-07-2002 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John Paul
01-07-2002 6:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Larry:
Hypothetical pathways are quite easy to think of and indeed, you haven't bothered to address the Doolittle work unless you did it while I was away. It has direct bearing on the subject and blood clotting.

John Paul:
Hypotheticals are not a substitute for real empirical evidence.


ROTFL--consistency isn't a strong point of yours. The "power" of Behe's argument rests upon the supposed impossibility of such systems evolving. If a plausible pathway is found that is consistent with evolution, Behe doesn't have an argument. IOW, his argument rests upon the claim of impossibility. Once impossibility is shown not to exist, so does any validity of the argument.

And indeed, Doolittle has done specific work to support this in the Sea Cucumber, vertebrates and lobsters with perfectly consistent results to there is real work supporting the argument.

quote:

Larry:
Actually there is a great deal of evidence given Doolittle's work that traces the path of blood clotting. You've argued yourself into a perfect circle. Now, either you can explain why Doolittle's ideas are wrong from the paper or you really don't have an argument.

John Paul:
Behe's paper, which I linked to in my thread opening post, discusses Doolittle's work. Why should I re-do what has been done?


Because it wasn't in response to what I referred you to? How is that?

Behe's response consists of:
1)_Evidence of common descent is not evidence of natural selection.

Meaning that in your twisted defense you claim that a defense by Behe that accepts the work by Doolittle as evidence of common descent is an argument against common descent. You are contradicting yourself. I suggest you read what you cite from now on.

2) that it is a just so story. Of course, this isn't an argument, but a complaint that Behe is wrong. A just so story that is consistent with the evidence and with the theory is what we should find.

Above all, you haven't been reading anything cited to you or by you. The evidence of this is in claiming that Behe answers Doolittle's work you cite the rebuttal to a specific article by Doolittle that I didn't cite. You might notice that what I did cite was an article by Miller that expands on Doolittle's larger work and Behe has not answered:
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/clot/Clotting.html

Perhaps you would like to address this article that Behe hasn't addressed that goes into more detail.

Cheers,
Larry


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 01-07-2002 6:25 AM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John Paul, posted 01-07-2002 4:12 PM lbhandli has responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 112 (1667)
01-07-2002 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by lbhandli
01-07-2002 1:43 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Larry:
Hypothetical pathways are quite easy to think of and indeed, you haven't bothered to address the Doolittle work unless you did it while I was away. It has direct bearing on the subject and blood clotting.

John Paul:
Hypotheticals are not a substitute for real empirical evidence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
ROTFL--consistency isn't a strong point of yours. The "power" of Behe's argument rests upon the supposed impossibility of such systems evolving. If a plausible pathway is found that is consistent with evolution, Behe doesn't have an argument. IOW, his argument rests upon the claim of impossibility. Once impossibility is shown not to exist, so does any validity of the argument.

John Paul:
What is a 'plausible pathway'? One someone can think of? Or once it is thought of, also demonstrated to be so? As an engineer I can testify that what works on paper does not always work in real life. Also you are correct by stating "Once impossibility is shown not to exist, so does any validity of the argument." That of course is how to falsify ID. Show that one isn't needed.

Larry:
And indeed, Doolittle has done specific work to support this in the Sea Cucumber, vertebrates and lobsters with perfectly consistent results to there is real work supporting the argument.

John Paul:
What are his results consitent with? Common Creator or common descent from some unknown population of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to reproduce. And not only could they reproduce, they could do so in just an imperfect way as to lead from that population to all the diversity of life. How can you tell which his results support?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry:
Actually there is a great deal of evidence given Doolittle's work that traces the path of blood clotting. You've argued yourself into a perfect circle. Now, either you can explain why Doolittle's ideas are wrong from the paper or you really don't have an argument.

John Paul:
Behe's paper, which I linked to in my thread opening post, discusses Doolittle's work. Why should I re-do what has been done?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Because it wasn't in response to what I referred you to? How is that?

Behe's response consists of:
1)_Evidence of common descent is not evidence of natural selection.

Meaning that in your twisted defense you claim that a defense by Behe that accepts the work by Doolittle as evidence of common descent is an argument against common descent. You are contradicting yourself. I suggest you read what you cite from now on.

John Paul:
That is not my defense. Thanks for twisting what I am saying to suit your needs. All I am saying is there appears to be systems that upon inspection, exhibit IR. I also understand what minimal functionality is. That is something often over-looked by evolutionists.

Larry:
2) that it is a just so story. Of course, this isn't an argument, but a complaint that Behe is wrong. A just so story that is consistent with the evidence and with the theory is what we should find.

Above all, you haven't been reading anything cited to you or by you. The evidence of this is in claiming that Behe answers Doolittle's work you cite the rebuttal to a specific article by Doolittle that I didn't cite. You might notice that what I did cite was an article by Miller that expands on Doolittle's larger work and Behe has not answered:
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/clot/Clotting.html

Perhaps you would like to address this article that Behe hasn't addressed that goes into more detail.

John Paul:
Behe has kicked butt so far. Seeing that this is his field, I will wait to see what he says. You are correct though, I didn't read Doolittle's new stuff. After being body slammed I thought he would just stay down and just rolled my eyes when I saw your link. And know that Miller has added his 2 cents worth I am sure it is even more exciting.

BTW, Behe did read Miller & Doolittle:

E. A Modest Conclusion

I would like to pause here for a moment to point out that all three scientists who tried to meet the
challenge to Darwinian evolution of blood clotting?Russell Doolittle, Kenneth Miller, and
Keith Robison?foundered on exactly the same point, the point of irreducible complexity. Yet
they foundered in three different ways. Doolittle mistakenly thought that even the current cascade might not be irreducibly complex, but experimental results showed him to be wrong. Miller either proposed unregulated steps or just waved his hands and shouted ?gene duplication?, avoiding the problem by obfuscation. Robison directly attacked a piece of the problem, but failed to see he was intelligently guiding events in a distinctly non-Darwinian scenario. Perhaps we may be allowed to conclude that when three scientists, highly intelligent and strongly motivated to discredit it, all come up empty, that irreducible complexity is indeed a big hurdle for Darwinism.

However much you complain irreducibly complex systems remain so and minimal functionality is the thorn in the ToE's side.

------------------
John Paul

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-07-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by lbhandli, posted 01-07-2002 1:43 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by lbhandli, posted 01-07-2002 5:22 PM John Paul has responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 112 (1671)
01-07-2002 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by John Paul
01-07-2002 4:12 PM


quote:

John Paul:
What is a 'plausible pathway'? One someone can think of? Or once it is thought of, also demonstrated to be so? As an engineer I can testify that what works on paper does not always work in real life. Also you are correct by stating "Once impossibility is shown not to exist, so does any validity of the argument." That of course is how to falsify ID. Show that one isn't needed.

One that is consistent with the mechanisms of evolution and fits the available evidence. Either you can show that the pathway Miller presents or Doolittle in his original work wouldn’t work, or Behe doesn’t have an argument. You don’t seem to grasp Behe’s argument at all. His argument is based on it being impossible. If it isn’t impossible he doesn’t have an argument. Understand?

quote:

John Paul:
What are his results consitent with? Common Creator or common descent from some unknown population of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to reproduce. And not only could they reproduce, they could do so in just an imperfect way as to lead from that population to all the diversity of life. How can you tell which his results support?

For one there is no theory regarding a common creator so it is impossible to tell what would be consistent. Your position seems to be that anything is consistent with a common creator. Perhaps you could identify some clear falsifications of such a theory if it were to exist so that one could tell what is consistent and what is not? It should be a breeze if such a theory exists.

quote:

John Paul:
Behe has kicked butt so far. Seeing that this is his field, I will wait to see what he says.

Ummm…it is also Doolittle’s field and Doolittle is much better respected. So your argument from authority is invalid. How do you know if he is kicking butt if you can’t understand the argument. AGAIN, I will ask you how you can reconcile your contention that evolution is impossible because of evidence that BEHE states is evidence of common descent? If you had read what you cited, you would know that Behe agrees that Doolittle has evidence of common descent, but argues a special mechanism is needed in there. DO YOU GRASP THAT WHAT YOU ARE CITING IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING?

quote:

You are correct though, I didn't read Doolittle's new stuff. After being body slammed I thought he would just stay down and just rolled my eyes when I saw your link. And know that Miller has added his 2 cents worth I am sure it is even more exciting.
BTW, Behe did read Miller & Doolittle:


And if you are going to continue to refuse to pay attention this is going to be a long discussion of circles. Behe is replying to an earlier article by Doolittle and to Miller’s book. Miller provides a much more detailed analysis of xenon shuffling in the link that the publisher removed for brevity. IOW, it isn’t what Behe is responding to in your link. If you read what you linked you would know this.

Cheers and Happy Reading,
Larry


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by John Paul, posted 01-07-2002 4:12 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John Paul, posted 01-07-2002 7:23 PM lbhandli has responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 112 (1672)
01-07-2002 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by lbhandli
01-07-2002 5:22 PM


Larry:
One that is consistent with the mechanisms of evolution and fits the available evidence. Either you can show that the pathway Miller presents or Doolittle in his original work wouldn’t work, or Behe doesn’t have an argument. You don’t seem to grasp Behe’s argument at all. His argument is based on it being impossible. If it isn’t impossible he doesn’t have an argument. Understand?

John Paul:
How can I show wouldn't work when they haven't shown it would? In order to show something is possible it must be demonstrated, not talked about and not just put down on paper. Understand?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Paul:
What are his results consitent with? Common Creator or common descent from some unknown population of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to reproduce. And not only could they reproduce, they could do so in just an imperfect way as to lead from that population to all the diversity of life. How can you tell which his results support?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
For one there is no theory regarding a common creator so it is impossible to tell what would be consistent. Your position seems to be that anything is consistent with a common creator. Perhaps you could identify some clear falsifications of such a theory if it were to exist so that one could tell what is consistent and what is not? It should be a breeze if such a theory exists.

John Paul:
There is a theory regarding Creation- you just choose to ignore it. Huge difference. The link to the true origins provided falsifications for it.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by lbhandli, posted 01-07-2002 5:22 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by lbhandli, posted 01-08-2002 4:02 PM John Paul has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3865
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 14 of 112 (1673)
01-07-2002 7:41 PM


To put the topic in a nutshell:

Essentially, isn't the ID concept the theory of evolution, with God's guidance added in?

Moose

------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 6:37 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 112 (1681)
01-08-2002 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Minnemooseus
01-07-2002 7:41 PM


To put the topic in a nutshell:
Essentially, isn't the ID concept the theory of evolution, with God's guidance added in?

Moose

John Paul:
No, ID says nothing about God. Sure you can infer that God is the IDer, but that is another matter. Creation is a subset of ID that does just that.

Moose, some argue that ID is synonomous to theistic evolution but I see theistic evolutionists argue against ID all the time. So I don't know what to make of that comparison.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-07-2002 7:41 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022