Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,565 Year: 4,822/9,624 Month: 170/427 Week: 83/85 Day: 0/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5230 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 226 of 264 (546449)
02-10-2010 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Percy
02-10-2010 5:04 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
But I provided that link only for completeness because the specifics of the paper aren't anywhere near as germane as addressing your misconceptions, but I will tell you that the paper says they examined 246,045 genes and found 642 different genes that they considered untransferable to E. coli. See how wrong the conclusion you drew from the abstract was?
I concluded certain genes were toxic to E. coli and inhibited their growth. I think you are seeing only a part of the study.
In 1,064 (76%) ofthese events, the same gene was uncloneable to E. coli fromtwo or more different genomes. Sixty one genes (477 events,34% of total events) could not be cloned from 5 or moredifferent genomes into E. coli (Fig. 2). The high transfer failure rate for certain gene families across several genomes further suggests that specific genes, rather than the
experimental protocol or random biases, may cause this lack
of horizontal transfer.
I'm going to admit that I really don't know what is going on in that cut and paste above. Maybe it would help if I was in the lab studying it with them. It appears to me certain genes are found in different genera of bacteria but certain genes interfere with HGT. In other words, I see it is specific genes inhibiting successful transfer. It also looks like they were using the chemical IPTG and antibiotics to help force certain gene transfers.
Instead our results suggest there are universal gene transfer
barriers, regardless of whether transfer occurs among closely
or distantly related microorganisms, and that these barriers
may be associated with toxicity of the transferred gene to the
host.
This is probably your most significant misconception. The discoveries of radio and quantum mechanics were not made because people dreamed up concepts for which they had no evidence. The evidence came first.
This is true. My point was not that the theories were dreamed up. Quantum physics is grounded on empirical evidence. My point, and this was probably a misconception of you was that whatever you don't see doesn't exist. I remember meeting an atheist who thought this way. Apply that sort of thinking to what science knew 200 years ago and you know what they knew from their five senses was only a very small part of reality. My point was, what makes you think we know everything there is to know?
Someone of an unscientific mind who did not possess Faraday's discipline might have hypothesized angels or the unseen hand of an intelligence, pretty much the same thing ID does.
That is only one design paradigm. Why does a supernatural creator have to use supernatural processes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 5:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Taq, posted 02-11-2010 12:23 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 02-11-2010 2:08 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5230 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 227 of 264 (546450)
02-10-2010 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Percy
02-10-2010 5:14 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Where you went wrong was in using HGT as an example of something science wouldn't consider in the case of the bacterial flagellum.
Did I state that? Where did I state it? Why would I state that when I believe HGT has the most potential for explaining the bacterial flagellum?
Maybe I shouldn't be attempting to read the papers. Maybe I should do something else other than debating you people? Not that I have something against you Percy. I think you are OK (even though you insult me) but I just don't understand how we see certain things the same way but other things much differently.
And another thing, I will state it again. I don't know enough about HGT to criticize it... but I do question it because it doesn't convince me it can build complex molecular machinery.
It apparently can create a new type of flatworm or a sea slug that uses photosynthesis. That is amazing in itself. But what kinds of changes have to be made in the genome to accomodate this? Photosynthetic algae is still algae in or just under the surface of the worm or slug. As Taq stated, it modifies existing genes. To create something novel such as a complex bacterial flagellum or a cilium is an unhill process not a horizontal or a lateral process. But I cannot rule out a tortuous HGT route with my level of knowledge can I? At least this makes sense to me. I guess you will just assume that I have to be wrong because you call me the Forrest Gump of the forum, right?
I really have better things to do.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 02-10-2010 5:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 02-11-2010 8:00 AM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 235 by Taq, posted 02-11-2010 12:31 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2774 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 228 of 264 (546460)
02-11-2010 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by traderdrew
02-10-2010 2:04 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Hi, Traderdrew.
traderdrew writes:
There are plenty of those who insist ID = Creationism...
Up until the point when you posted on this thread, I was very adamantly arguing that ID is not (necessarily) creationism. Then, you posted, and, without provocation, immediately began talking about your intelligent designer having two attributes (foresight and omnipotence) traditionally associated with the creationists’ Creator, but not necessary for nor implied by Intelligent Design:
traderdrew, on foresight, writes:
Oh and I think a designer could use Darwinian evolution ONLY if the designer had strong foresight as to see what occurs ahead of the pathways of chaos....
source
You know as well as I do intelligent designers have a certain amount of foresight. It could be that the one who designed life had a hell of a lot more than any of us.
source
traderdrew, on omnipotence, writes:
I don't see a problem with an all powerful designer accounting for different types of forces and finding a way to deal with all of them.
source
You, and people like you, keep insisting that there is a difference between ID and creationism, but you do not seem to be able to envision an Intelligent Designer who isn’t the Creator. There are plenty of possibilities that are compatible with non-creationist ID, yet no IDist ever talks about these.
At any rate, it’s time to end this discussion, because it’s not on-topic. However, I would love to be convinced that ID and creationism are different thingsmy argument on this thread actually requires them to be so, in factso I will join any thread you want to start on the topic and determine whether or not there is any difference between your intelligent design and the creationism you malign.
Edited by Bluejay, : "Non-creationism ID" and "At any tate" made me look bad.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by traderdrew, posted 02-10-2010 2:04 PM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2010 7:40 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1481 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 229 of 264 (546477)
02-11-2010 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Blue Jay
02-11-2010 12:30 AM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Hi Bluejay,
Up until the point when you posted on this thread, I was very adamantly arguing that ID is not (necessarily) creationism.
And doing a great job at it.
You, and people like you, keep insisting that there is a difference between ID and creationism, but you do not seem to be able to envision an Intelligent Designer who isn’t the Creator.
It seems that the creationists can't understand that there is an inherent conflict between full commitment to ID and full commitment to their faith, and that as a result one or the other will suffer, usually this means that their portrayal of ID suffers, because it is weakened until it supports the faith.
It's part of the confirmation bias \ cognitive dissonance \ world view problem.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2010 12:30 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 230 of 264 (546480)
02-11-2010 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by traderdrew
02-10-2010 9:37 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
traderdrew writes:
Where you went wrong was in using HGT as an example of something science wouldn't consider in the case of the bacterial flagellum.
Did I state that? Where did I state it? Why would I state that when I believe HGT has the most potential for explaining the bacterial flagellum.
I hereby award you the Buzsaw award for outstanding uncomprehension above and beyond believability. Explaining things to you only seems to confuse you further, but I'm going to walk out on a limb (I know I'm going to regret this) and repeat what I said back in Message 211:
Apparently, one of us has no idea what you said in Message 202, and I think it's you. Here's what you said:
traderdrew in Message 202 writes:
I believe the scientific explanation for the flagellum involves horizontal gene transfer. It apparently serves as a work around for a "flagellum first - ID position" saying both the TTSS and the flagellum evolved independently. Scientific explanations sometimes have hidden problems their proponents or participants on the evcforum do not wish to see. The models may appease their emotions but what good does it do if they don't wish to see things another way.
Aren't you arguing for HGT as a superior explanation for the bacterial flagellum, as opposed to "scientific explanations that sometimes have hidden problems that their proponents or participants on the evcforum do not wish to see."
I've taken no position on HGT's role in the evolutionary history of the bacterial flagellum. I wasn't trying to turn the discussion onto the topic of the flagellum. The flagellum has been discussed to death here already. I was pointing out to you that your use of HGT as an example of something science wouldn't consider with regard to the flagellum was dead wrong.
I really have better things to do.
Maybe you do, but I sincerely hope there are things that you do better than this. I'm sorry about the insults but I've just spent my last four or five messages to you explaining to you what it was you said that was that so wrong, and you apparently still don't get it, and it would be ridiculous to pretend that this unbelievable inability to understand anything isn't really happening and that we're actually having a productive discussion. What you're doing is one of the techniques employed by trolls to prevent discussion from making any progress, except obviously you're sincere.
My point, and this was probably a misconception of you was that whatever you don't see doesn't exist.
I know this is how you're translating it in your mind, but science does not say that what you can't observe (directly or indirectly with any of the senses) does not exist. It says that what you cannot observe cannot be scientifically studied.
Why does a supernatural creator have to use supernatural processes?
Why does ID claim that the creator and the manner in which he created must remain forever unknowable? That's a reference to the supernatural, right? Because anything that happens in the natural world leaves evidence behind. But if your supernatural creator is leaving natural evidence behind, then that evidence is what you should be talking about in this thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by traderdrew, posted 02-10-2010 9:37 PM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2010 8:58 AM Percy has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2774 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 231 of 264 (546495)
02-11-2010 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Percy
02-11-2010 8:00 AM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Hi, Percy.
Percy writes:
traderdrew writes:
I believe the scientific explanation for the flagellum involves horizontal gene transfer. It apparently serves as a work around for a "flagellum first - ID position" saying both the TTSS and the flagellum evolved independently. Scientific explanations sometimes have hidden problems their proponents or participants on the evcforum do not wish to see. The models may appease their emotions but what good does it do if they don't wish to see things another way.
Aren't you arguing for HGT as a superior explanation for the bacterial flagellum, as opposed to "scientific explanations that sometimes have hidden problems that their proponents or participants on the evcforum do not wish to see."
I thought he was setting up the HGT idea as one of the "scientific explanations that have hidden problems," but he lost me when he said it was a work-around for something.
I think he was saying that IDists discovered that the flagellum appeared first, and that evolutionists compensated for this by making up a story about HGT. He then thought that we understood exactly what he was talking about, and drew his conclusion that some scientific ideas have hidden problems.
Flagellum physiology is outside of my expertise, and I thought it would only drag us away from the topic anyway, so I didn't push the issue.
I think he's been thoroughly confused that we found his statement to be far less coherent than he thought it was.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 02-11-2010 8:00 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 02-11-2010 9:10 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 232 of 264 (546499)
02-11-2010 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Blue Jay
02-11-2010 8:58 AM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Oh, I get it. When he said, "I believe the scientific explanation..." he didn't mean that HGT is the explanation he accepts. He meant that he thinks HGT is the currently accepted scientific explanation. Thanks for clearing that up.
AbE: I went back and tried to see if rereading some of Traderdrew's stuff in light of this new interpretation would clear anything up, but it only gets more confusing. I don't know what he's trying to say, and I don't think he does either.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add comment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2010 8:58 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by traderdrew, posted 02-14-2010 9:37 AM Percy has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10155
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 233 of 264 (546520)
02-11-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by traderdrew
02-10-2010 4:56 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Parts of random filaments are very likely to aggregate into clumps before they are transported through any sort of porus channel to the outer surface of the cell.
Tell me why they would stick to the right places outside of the cell? Why would the parts of the flagellum be transported through the TTSS in the first place? What would prevent them from sticking to the inside of the pilus or the TTSS?
The key to the past is the present. How do bacteria do it now?
quote:
The major subunit FliC and the minor subunits FliD, FlgK, and FlgL are delivered from the cytosol to the base of the nascent flagellum by a type III export pathway in which they are bound by the subunit-specific export chaperones FliS (for FliC), FliT (for FliD), and FlgN (for FlgK and FlgL). These export chaperones effect transition to the membrane by preventing premature polymerization of subunits, acting as bodyguards for the C-terminal amphipathic oligomerization domain (2—4) and by piloting the subunits to the export apparatus (5).
Lewis et al. 2006
Chaperone proteins can also be found for the toxins associated with the TTSS.
The TTSS has 10 protein parts. What are the chances of the 32 other proteins being secreted in the correct order and having the correct binding sites?
I don't know. Why don't you show me the math.
What part of natural selection would preserve the step by step process in any given environment?
The part of natural selection that always selects for function that benefits the organism.
What are the odds that a gene able to code for such specialized proteins will just happen to come along to be secreted in a specific way by an existing TTSS?
Again, why don't you show us the math and the assumptions used in calculating the probability.
Frankly, I think it is nearly impossible to calculate these odds. First, you need the target which must describe ALL proteins that would have resulted in some sort of motility system. Mind you, the target is not what did evolve but the total list of all proteins that COULD HAVE evolved into a motility system. How do we do that? Given the trillions and trillions of possible proteins it is impossible to test all of them for their potential in a motility system.
Also, these proteins must be tested against the genetic background of the pre-flagellar genomes of bacteria. We don't have those genomes, or really a strong idea of what they looked like.
Now tell me what use the TTSS would have if bacteria didn't have a flagellum to begin with?
The same function that the TTSS has now outside of exporting flagellar proteins. It delivers bacterial toxins that kill eukaryotic cells.
I would also wonder why the TTSS is only found in specific gram-negative bacteria and the bacterial flagellum is found in mesophilic, thermophilic, gram-positive, gram-negative, and spirochete bacteria while TTSS systems are restricted to a few gram-negative bacteria.
In some lineages the toxin secretion function was kept. In some lineages the flagellar function was kept. In some lineages both functions were kept.
You are making the fallacious "if men evolved from apes why are there still apes" argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by traderdrew, posted 02-10-2010 4:56 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10155
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 234 of 264 (546523)
02-11-2010 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by traderdrew
02-10-2010 9:30 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
I concluded certain genes were toxic to E. coli and inhibited their growth.
Just for some background, these experiments were done to help understand why some genes were difficult to sequence. When a genome is sequenced the first step is to break up the genome into smaller chunks, usually through digestion with endonucleases. These smaller chunks are then inserted into plasmids. The E. coli are used to house these plasmids. If one of the genes in the inserted plasmid is toxic to the E. coli then you will not get a viable clone for this piece of the genome that is being sequenced. The authors of this paper wanted to figure out why these specific chunks of DNA could not be sequenced using this technique. As it turns out, these genes have active promoters that E. coli recognizes and the resulting protein and/or mRNA is toxic to the E. coli.
So the DNA transfers just fine. E. coli take up exogenous DNA very readily which is one reason why the are used extensively in laboratories.
It appears to me certain genes are found in different genera of bacteria but certain genes interfere with HGT. In other words, I see it is specific genes inhibiting successful transfer. It also looks like they were using the chemical IPTG and antibiotics to help force certain gene transfers.
Like I said above, the DNA gets in just fine. I didn't see any specific details for their protocols but from my experience the antibiotics and IPTG had nothing to do with the actual transfer of the DNA. What they probably did was use a plasmid carrying the lacZ promoter and an antibiotic resistance gene. The antibiotic resistance allows them to screen for clones that have the plasmid, and the IPTG (a lactose sugar analog) activates the lazZ promoter allowing for controlled expression of the gene inserted into the plasmid. This allows them to clone toxic genes under control of the lacZ promoter instead of the promoter that is associated with the gene in the original host. This is a very common plasmid used to express recombinant proteins in E. coli. Using this set up they were able to show that the genes do get into the cells but that expression of these genes results in toxicity.
On top of that, only a few of the genes considered were untransferable
"We considered only genes 1.5kb or less (246,045 genes, representing 85% of all annotated genes), as larger genes are less likely to be covered to their full length by multiple clones.
Of the genes inspected, we recorded 1,402 instances (642 different genes) in which a gene with a Clusters of Orthologous Groups (COG) annotation was not fully represented in any single clone, and was marked as untransferable to E. coli (with an estimated false positive prediction rate of 0.9%-1.3%; see SOM).
"
So it would appear that less than 1% of genes (1,402 out of 246,045 genes of 1.5k bases or larger) are toxic when transferred into E. coli. They then show that the homologs of an untransferable gene in closely related species are likewise untransferable which isn't too surprising.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by traderdrew, posted 02-10-2010 9:30 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10155
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 235 of 264 (546525)
02-11-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by traderdrew
02-10-2010 9:37 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
And another thing, I will state it again. I don't know enough about HGT to criticize it... but I do question it because it doesn't convince me it can build complex molecular machinery.
Then let's look at what HGT can do. It can transfer functional proteins that work in one species into another species. When these proteins find themselves in a new species they may very well bind to different proteins and take on new roles in the new species.
Think of it in terms of human technology. There was no need for hundreds of different cultures to independently invent the wheel. Instead, a single culture invents the wheel and then that invention is horizontally transferred to other cultures when they come into contact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by traderdrew, posted 02-10-2010 9:37 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 236 of 264 (546541)
02-11-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by traderdrew
02-10-2010 9:30 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
traderdrew writes:
I concluded certain genes were toxic to E. coli and inhibited their growth.
Notice that in Message 234 Taq told you precisely what I told you. Now you've got *two* people who have interpreted the paper for you and told you the same thing.
I think you are seeing only a part of the study.
Drew, you're not making sense. How can you state that you think I've got it wrong, and then in your next paragraph state that, "I'm going to admit that I really don't know what is going on in the cut and paste above." What on God's green Earth is causing you to reach conclusions on topics you don't understand? If you don't understand something then keep an open mind. The way the process works is, "Facts and study first, conclusions later." You're doing it exactly backwards.
I think it's great that you're willing to put forth the effort to read scientific papers, but if all you're doing is looking at the words without comprehension then what's the point? It doesn't seem to matter to you what you read, you think it all supports your views. Lacking any conceptual framework in which to make interpretations, you're just freely superimposing your own personal viewpoint on whatever you read.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by traderdrew, posted 02-10-2010 9:30 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5230 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 237 of 264 (546849)
02-14-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Percy
02-11-2010 9:10 AM


Re: Poor Philosophy
Oh, I get it. When he said, "I believe the scientific explanation..." he didn't mean that HGT is the explanation he accepts. He meant that he thinks HGT is the currently accepted scientific explanation. Thanks for clearing that up.
Yes, that is correct. I will state it one more time in another way. I don't know enough about HGT to critique it or form a good opinion on it.
The neo-Darwinian explanation for the flagellum consistently fails to convince me. The most simple and powerful way of refuting it is, how does natural selection perserve each step or even a few simultaneous steps in the process of building it from a TTSS? I would think you need a blueprint for building a flagellum. Saying you can build it from a TTSS in a brief and random way without useful precursors that natural selection can preserve is almost like saying, "I have an engine and a fuel pump and random mutation can build the rest of the automobile." I think a blueprint could come from an intelligent designer.
I cannot prove my last statment above so someone can only disprove it or falsify it by some other means. So do I need to know everything about the scientific papers to form a logical opinion on the issue?
HGT is the only way I can see it could possibly be done. I know "basically" how neo-Darwinism works in my head. The paradigm is easy enough. The question is, can these things be proven in the lab? What happens in the head may not happen in real life in the lab.
I have been trying to be objective. We all under the influence of our own biases, even scientists. Just look at this link here. This ought to get some of you stirred.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/02/100209183335.htm
The old theories were popular, had public appeal and "many people saw what they wanted to see" instead of carefully interpreting the data, he said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 02-11-2010 9:10 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Percy, posted 02-14-2010 10:51 AM traderdrew has replied
 Message 243 by Blue Jay, posted 02-16-2010 12:27 PM traderdrew has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 238 of 264 (546856)
02-14-2010 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by traderdrew
02-14-2010 9:37 AM


Re: Poor Philosophy
traderdrew writes:
The most simple and powerful way of refuting it is, how does natural selection preserve each step or even a few simultaneous steps in the process of building it from a TTSS?
First of all, while "a few simultaneous steps" are not impossible, they're considered sufficiently unlikely that we should leave them out of the discussion. Don't even think about them.
So the scenario you're thinking of is a mutation that causes the organism to have something more closely resembling the bacterial flagellum, and you're wondering how that mutation survives the filter of natural selection. The answer is that if the organism is able to survive and reproduce so that the mutation becomes represented in succeeding generations, then it has been selected by natural selection. Whatever qualities the mutation conferred, if any, they had no significant negative effect on survival and reproduction and may have provided some positive benefits. This is because if the mutation had caused the organism to become significantly less competitive in its environment then it would either produce fewer offspring, no offspring, or perhaps even die shortly after "birth."
In other words, the mutation must have either conferred an advantage or at least not have put the organism at a disadvantage. It's no mystery that the process of descent with modification filtered by natural selection is in action.
But if you want to know the details of the mutations and their order of occurrence for the bacterial flagellum, we aren't in the possession of sufficient evidence to know this at this time, and we may never have sufficient evidence.
have been trying to be objective. We all under the influence of our own biases, even scientists. Just look at this link here. This ought to get some of you stirred.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/02/100209183335.htm
Why on Earth would evolutionists become "stirred" (I assume you mean upset) by which evolutionary path for birds is indicated by the evidence? If Ruben's ideas about bird evolution are what the evidence indicates then everyone will get on board. What gets us stirred up is when people suggest evolutionary pathways that have little or no evidence, which seems to be the case with some of Alan Feduccia's ideas about bird evolution. By the way, Ruben has published papers with Feduccia, so it wouldn't be surprising if it turned out that some of his ideas have some of the same weaknesses as Feduccia's.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by traderdrew, posted 02-14-2010 9:37 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by traderdrew, posted 02-14-2010 1:26 PM Percy has replied

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5230 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 239 of 264 (546862)
02-14-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Percy
02-14-2010 10:51 AM


Re: Poor Philosophy
But if you want to know the details of the mutations and their order of occurrence for the bacterial flagellum, we aren't in the possession of sufficient evidence to know this at this time, and we may never have sufficient evidence.
We are in almost total agreement and i'm glad you are starting to understand my position now. In your defense, I could have have provided more details before.
The only place where we disagree is, you can try to find unintelligent causes for the Rosetta Stone and waste your time for an eternity.
Why on Earth would evolutionists become "stirred" (I assume you mean upset) by which evolutionary path for birds is indicated by the evidence?
I didn't think most of you would would be upset over it. Just only if science is like a religion to some of you. It seems to me the bird to dinosaur pathway was almost like a holy dogma in evolution as though the process behind finding it was / is infallible.
My point really was we are all, to a certain extent, subject to what we wish to see.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Percy, posted 02-14-2010 10:51 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Percy, posted 02-15-2010 8:48 AM traderdrew has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 240 of 264 (546947)
02-15-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by traderdrew
02-14-2010 1:26 PM


Re: Poor Philosophy
traderdrew writes:
My point really was we are all, to a certain extent, subject to what we wish to see.
That's why science is a consensus activity. All the biases of Christians and Hindus and Moslems and atheists and Americans and Russians and Chinese and Africans and republicans and parliamentarians and democrats, and so forth and so on, must all be of no consequence in order for a scientific consensus to emerge.
Contrast this to science as practiced by creationists, who are almost exclusively evangelical Christians. Wouldn't you agree that the creationist community is suffering from a bit of a lack of diversity? Whose views, scientists or creationists, must by the very nature of the structure of their communities be less vulnerable to bias and preconceived notions?
When you argue that scientific explanations aren't the same thing as truth (see your Message 202) you're running the risk of conflating definitions from two realms, the scientific and the religious. If by truth you mean religious and spiritual truths, then science doesn't seek truth at all. But if by truth you mean things that are true about the natural world, then scientific explanations *are* the same thing as truth.
If creationists had their wish then science would be a way of seeking both spiritual and natural truths. This is why creationists want science to abandon the methodological naturalism. That's not going to happen, for two reasons, one definitional, the other practical.
First, methodological naturalism is woven into the fabric of what science is. You could no more remove methodological naturalism from science then you could remove "round" from the definition of "circle."
The practical reason is that creationists have not a single example of non-natural science producing anything scientifically meaningful. As I've said many times, if creationists could start producing better answers than traditional science science at Christian colleges then future scientists would beat a path to their doors, there'd be a scientific basis for Christianity, and we'd all become Christians. Just showing how abandoning methodological naturalism provides better answers for something, anything, even if it's just one example, will be very convincing. It doesn't matter what it is. Use Christian scientific techniques to provide better earthquake predictions, or better oil search methods, or better vaccines, or better space rockets, or better something. Just provide an example of creationist approaches providing better science just once, and then maybe you'll have something.
This challenge is rhetorical, of course. As I said before, non-naturalistic approaches have been tried in the past, it was called the Dark Ages.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by traderdrew, posted 02-14-2010 1:26 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by traderdrew, posted 02-15-2010 9:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024