|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do we tell the difference, Ahmad? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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: quote: No you didn’t, Ahmad. Not at all. Not for what I asked, anyway.
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? 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
quote: 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: 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: quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Bumpity bump...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Ahmad, I know, & I accept this, if we are defining IC as a system that fails if one component is removed. I have always accepted it, it has never been in contention. This is an extremely weak response, given I accepted IC's existence in the post 11 (among others). This is not what is being asked of you. You have asked what positive evidence was, as well as an example. You know what it is, since you have correctly used the concept. Now, please provide positive evidence that IC systems cannot evolve. If you can do this, you will be the first. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bump.....
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter B,
quote: Well, that would be true if you can positively rule out other explanations. Can you? Remember, this is your assertion, no "well, explain it from an evolutionary POV" arguments please. Positively back up your claim that genetic redundancies ARE evidence of design, by way of ruling out evolution, & other explanations such as perpetual existance (Well if god can have existed forever, why not life, lurking in some backwater vacuum?) Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: But you didn't. You simply stopped posting to me. I still don't know how you can tell where the hot spots were on ancient DNA from extant DNA, among other things. You claimed I wasn't vringing anything new to the argument without actually substantively responding to the criticisms/questions. Why would I bring something new? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
quote: quote: This still isn't positive evidence of non-evolvability of IC systems. Nothing is firmly established by your statement, other than the system fails if one part is removed. In short, you are still describing an IC system. That this is un-evolvable remains an argument from incredulity on your part. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
quote: A fossil form that has traits found ONLY in extant reptiles & birds is positive evidence of common descent from reptiles to birds BECAUSE, the evidence can be touched, tested, & measured, & is a prediction-come-true for the reptile bird hypothesis. The flagella MIGHT have evolved, or it MIGHT have been designed, there is nothing to indicate which just by looking at the flagella. You are begging the question (a logical fallacy Page not found - Intrepid Software ) by making an argument that evidence for non-evolvable IC is an example of IC that couldn’t evolve (you have not shown the latter). As has been pointed out to you I-don’t-know-how-many-times, IC is not by definition un-evolvable. That is the contention. You appear to be claiming that because someone defined IC as being un-evolvable, it must be true, & we don't actually need to show it. WRONG! This is precisely what you NEED TO SHOW. Hence, showing me an IC system isn’t evidence of it’s non-evolvability. That will take more. I don’t have to tell you how an IC system evolves, it’s not my claim, it’s yours. So tell me how an IC flagella presents positive evidence of its own un-evolvability? I know its IC, I don’t know it can’t evolve. Without making me go over the same stuff for a fourth time, please! I’ll say it again. IC is NOT un-evolvable by definition. It is NOT good enough just to show me an IC system, because all you’ve shown me is an IC system, & not that it can’t evolve. Therefore an IC system is not positive evidence that said IC system cannot evolve. Any claim that it is is an argument from incredulity, & an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
quote: Oh good. How? No unbacked assertions now!
quote: I have never claimed IC systems evolved. in fact, I've challenged you to show that I have many posts ago. My argument all along has been that your argument should be able to stand by itself. But so what if I did? The argument is; can you support your contention that IC systems never evolved? not whether I can show that they did, regardless of your repeated efforts to switch the burden of proof.
quote: No, you are not, & you’ve done it several times, despite being shown the logical error. Please try to follow this line of reasoning. You claimed in your last post that:
quote: For the logical fallacy begging the question to be committed, we must agree the conclusion is true in order to believe the premises are true. (Page not found - Intrepid Software) Your premises are that the bacterial flagellum is IC, & cannot have evolved (which is why you present it as an example). Your conclusion is that therefore IC systems cannot evolve (what else would you be arguing?) But the premises are only true if you accept the conclusion. Therefore, the argument is fallacious. It is a CLASSIC case of begging the question. THEREFORE, your argument is flawed & you haven’t presented positive evidence that IC cannot evolve. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-28-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
quote: quote: Please reread the question, I didn’t ask for testability of the concept that ID systems can evolve, but that they cannot. Certainly, finding an example that did evolve would falsify IC, but not finding one isn’t a test that they can’t evolve. But, since you make the challenge....... THE MAMMALIAN EAR Malleus, incus, & stapes. Three bones which have to be in place in order to transmit sound from the ear drum. The functional whole (the three articulated bones) ceases to function as a whole when one bone is missing, that is, vibration cannot pass from the ear drum to the sensory organ, therefore, according to Behe it is irreducibly complex. Could such a thing evolve? Fossil evidence suggests it did. Fig 1.4.1
quote: In more detail, showing stratigraphy. Fig 1.4.3
quote: So, a transitional series providing positive evidence of the evolution of the malleus, incus, & stapes in mammals, & at the same time, the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. This transition is corroborated with embryological data, showing the corresponding homologous bones that make reptilian jaw bones in foetuses, go to make the anvil & hammer in mammalian foetuses. So, according to you I have falsified both IC & ID, by showing an IC system evolving!
quote: I most certainly DO have a view as regards evolvability of IC, but I have never expressed it, nor have I a need to. Furthermore, my view is irrelevant to how valid your argument is. I could be playing devils advocate, what should it matter to the quality of your argument? I understand your frustration, but sorry, no dice, your argument stands or falls on the basis of the evidence supporting it, regardless of what I think.
quote: Actually, I didn’t, you linked ME to that article. Regardless, if I am required to provide a cite to counter your argument, I will do so.
quote: Burden of proof of what? I never said IC evolved, I am arguing that you can’t show that it didn’t. My position in this thread is very specific. It was a deliberate act on my part. Why? Because usually what people do is make the claim you have (that IC evolution is impossible), then expect to have a valid argument because I can’t provide evidence to the contrary, regardless of the lack of positive evidence provided by them/yourselves. In doing this I hoped you would avoid an argument from ignorance (your argument is true because I have no evidence to the contrary). But you seem quite dogged & determined to commit such a fallacy. Since I have made no claim, there is no burden of proof to be placed upon me. You, however HAVE made a claim, & the burden of proof falls upon you to show positively that IC can’t evolve. Therefore, it IS you who have to do the talking, OK?
quote: Another logical fallacy! Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.( because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false.) See your points 2 & 3. There ARE plausible evolutionary pathways of IC structures, see the malleus, incus, & stapes, above, falsifying point 2 (an absolute), & therefore your conclusion, point 3.
quote: Incorrect. You do not have to accept that birds evolved from dinos to accept that the fossil record has examples of organisms that possess traits of both reptiles & birds, hence, no begging the question occurs, hence, no logical fallacy has been committed, hence, the argument is valid. So, I’m still waiting for positive evidence that isn’t logically flawed, of the impossibility of IC systems to evolve. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-31-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Mr Davies,
quote: It depends how you define IC, "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. (Behe)" Even Behe's definition doesn't implicitly state that IC = non-evolvable. Ahmad & I agree on a general definition, that IC is a system that fails if one part is removed. As such, your eye is IC if you remove the retina, or your leg is IC, since it fails to function if the femur is removed. It is NOT implicit that those structures couldn't have evolved, however, despite what creationists think. If they are going to make that claim, they must show it. This is what Ahmad has done, & why I'm trying to make him show that IC = non-evolvable with positive evidence.
quote: The flagellum is IC by the above definition, since removing one part renders the original function useless. But it's un-evolvability from other structures is by no means certain.. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Zhimbo, you sum up the very crux of the argument. It is circular. The premise in support of "IC cannot evolve", is "bacterial flagella is IC, & cannot evolve". The conclusion is "therefore IC cannot evolve". But you cannot accept the premise without knowing the conclusion is true. Circular argument. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 01-02-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
quote: The point of this thread is THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW, & HAVE BEEN UTTERLY UNABLE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM THAT IT DIDN’T!! The logical flaw in your reasoning has been pointed out to you, it is begging the question, ergo, a circular argument. The conclusion has to be true for you to accept the premise that an IC flagella cannot evolve. THE ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY INVALID. I don’t write the rules. If you wish to rewrite what constitutes a logically fallacious argument maybe you should try elsewhere.
quote: Behe defines IC as: "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 cause the system to effectively cease functioning." Where does it say IC cannot be present at the phenotypic level? It doesn’t, not at all. For the record, the flagellum itself is at the phenotypic level. Nor must IC be present at the molecular level only. A strawman. Secondly, I NEVER said the mammalian ear was IC, but that the functional unit consisting of the malleus, incus, & stapes that transmits vibration from the tympanic membrane to the inner ear is IC. If you remove one element, the unit fails. It is irreducibly complex by anyones definition. No more personal caveats & strawmen, please! Now, please address the implications of this.
quote: Your arguments are logically fallacious, therefore you have no valid evidence, should it be based upon such arguments, which it is.
quote: I have to provide you N_O_T_H_I_N_G. You seem to think that in order to produce a valid argument I have to provide you with 1/ something to argue against, & 2/ information. I don’t have to provide either.
quote: Argument from incredulity, another fallacy. Full circle.
quote: quote: It isn’t a misconception. Let me remind you of your statement:
quote: You have claimed that because something is unexplainable, it is false. Or because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false. This is a classic, textbook, case of argument from ignorance. I don’t care what you, Dembski, or Behe think of this, the argument fulfils the conditions to be logically fallacious. Period. No amount of hand waving will make it not true. As a result of this, your argument is rendered invalid.
quote: Couldn’t give a toss, as far as this argument is concerned. A hypothesis makes predictions, & testable evidence that supports that hypothesis is positive evidence. You have no evidence that isn’t fallacious. Positive evidence does not necessarily = truth. This is how science works, Ahmed, I thought you were studying science? Show me an electron.
quote: quote: Well, the ear bones still stand, since no one said IC had to be molecular, just a functional system that fails if an element is removed. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 01-08-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bump.....
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024