Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 8:15 AM
139 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, Percy (Admin), RAZD (4 members, 135 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,560 Year: 2,597/19,786 Month: 679/1,918 Week: 267/266 Day: 4/35 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   How do we tell the difference, Ahmad?
mark24
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 16 of 63 (27264)
12-18-2002 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Ahmad
12-18-2002 1:00 PM


quote:
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.


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.


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 18 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 6:38 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Ahmad, posted 12-27-2002 1:12 PM mark24 has responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 17 of 63 (27334)
12-19-2002 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Ahmad
12-02-2002 5:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:

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."

'Purpose' and 'function' are not the same thing.

Even with a lay defintion of 'purpose' we are considering the
issue of 'intent' and thereby assigning an intelligence to
the design process (i.e. a designer).

Because a 'system' exists which performs a function does not
mean that it has 'purpose'.

Behe definition (nor acceptance of it) of IC is not at
issue. Most us a willing to accept that all IC means is that
if you remove a component the thing is broke.

We differ in that evo's can accept that IC's can develop naturally
while creo's don't.

I have suggested in the 'Irreducible Complexity' thread
that this reasoning is an argument from incredulity and
nothing more.

quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:

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

Nope.

Just because you break something by removing a component
doesn't mean it was designed with a purpose, and it certainly
doesn't follow that it couldn't have developed unaided.

That is a connection yet to be made.

The definition of design you have given (apart from making
'Intelligent Design' an oxymoron) relys on 'purpose'.

You still have to show that there was an 'intent' behind
anything (i.e. that is WAS designed). Effectively you have
said that in order for something to be designed it must
be designed by someone ... which is the only real design
criterion I can think of at present ... and that means we
have to seek evidence of a designer.

quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:

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?

Life developed by adapting to where it had to live.

The universe isn't finely tuned to support life on Earth,
life on Earth has adapted to exploit the universe.


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 19 by forgiven, posted 12-20-2002 8:19 PM Peter has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Ahmad, posted 12-27-2002 2:11 PM Peter has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 18 of 63 (27467)
12-20-2002 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by mark24
12-18-2002 7:06 PM


bump.....

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 12-18-2002 7:06 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 63 (27537)
12-20-2002 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peter
12-19-2002 6:19 AM


Originally posted by Peter:
Life developed by adapting to where it had to live.

who says?

Peter:
The universe isn't finely tuned to support life on Earth,
life on Earth has adapted to exploit the universe.

who says?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peter, posted 12-19-2002 6:19 AM Peter has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by John, posted 12-20-2002 10:15 PM forgiven has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5708 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 20 of 63 (27545)
12-20-2002 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
12-01-2002 11:01 AM


Dear all,

I observed the same question in several threads and therefore I will clear this once and for all.

The pivotal question to be addressed is:

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

PB: Designed systems can be recognised by (genetic) redundancies. Structures, cells and/or genes present in the organism/genome without selective constraint cannot be explained by evolutionism and point in the direction of design. As elaborated several times before genetic redundancies do not have an association with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies in general are sufficient to bring down evolutionism since they do not demonstrate a relationship with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies leave the evolutionary community with complete surprise and disbelief. Have a look here: (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v415/n6867/full/415008a_fs.html)

So, remember for the next time: GENETIC REDUNDANCIES ARE CLEARCUT EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 12-01-2002 11:01 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 9:12 PM peter borger has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 21 of 63 (27546)
12-20-2002 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by peter borger
12-20-2002 9:04 PM


Peter B,

quote:
PB: Designed systems can be recognised by (genetic) redundancies. Structures, cells and/or genes present in the organism/genome without selective constraint cannot be explained by evolutionism and point in the direction of design. As elaborated several times before genetic redundancies do not have an association with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies in general are sufficient to bring down evolutionism since they do not demonstrate a relationship with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies leave the evolutionary community with complete surprise and disbelief. Have a look here: (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v415/n6867/full/415008a_fs.html)

So, remember for the next time: GENETIC REDUNDANCIES ARE CLEARCUT EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN.


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 9:04 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 10:26 PM mark24 has responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 63 (27553)
12-20-2002 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by forgiven
12-20-2002 8:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
Originally posted by Peter:
Life developed by adapting to where it had to live.

who says?


If you moved to the artic, would you adapt or would the environment?

quote:
Peter:
The universe isn't finely tuned to support life on Earth,
life on Earth has adapted to exploit the universe.

who says?


The universe was here some 10 billion years before the Earth showed up, give or take. And the Earth was here 1.5-2 billion years before life showed up. So what do you think is adapting to what? Is the Universe and the Earth finely tuning themselves to life-- which didn't exist during most of that fine tuning process--, or is life adapting to the universe? Its a pretty simple causal relationship.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by forgiven, posted 12-20-2002 8:19 PM forgiven has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 8:22 PM John has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5708 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 23 of 63 (27556)
12-20-2002 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by mark24
12-20-2002 9:12 PM


Dear Mark,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Designed systems can be recognised by (genetic) redundancies. Structures, cells and/or genes present in the organism/genome without selective constraint cannot be explained by evolutionism and point in the direction of design. As elaborated several times before genetic redundancies do not have an association with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies in general are sufficient to bring down evolutionism since they do not demonstrate a relationship with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies leave the evolutionary community with complete surprise and disbelief. Have a look here: (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v415/n6867/full/415008a_fs.html)
So, remember for the next time: GENETIC REDUNDANCIES ARE CLEARCUT EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M: Well, that would be true if you can positively rule out other explanations. Can you?

PB: At least, you are starting to concur that evolutionism is untenable in the light of these data.

M: 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?)

PB: In one of my first mails I claimed that I would bring doubt upon evolutionism and I did that. To free your mind. That was the goal. Mission accomplished.
Now, let's find more evidence for the GUToB. Maybe we could discuss redundant CpG DNA in bacteria that specificly evoces an immuneresponse in higher organisms. Design, my friend.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 9:12 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 12-21-2002 4:48 AM peter borger has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 24 of 63 (27580)
12-21-2002 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by peter borger
12-20-2002 10:26 PM


quote:
PB: In one of my first mails I claimed that I would bring doubt upon evolutionism and I did that. To free your mind. That was the goal. Mission accomplished.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 10:26 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by peter borger, posted 12-21-2002 8:32 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5708 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 25 of 63 (27612)
12-21-2002 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mark24
12-21-2002 4:48 AM


Dear Mark,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: In one of my first mails I claimed that I would bring doubt upon evolutionism and I did that. To free your mind. That was the goal. Mission accomplished.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MP: But you didn't.

PB: If so, explain to me genetic redundancies in a evolutionary way.

MP: You simply stopped posting to me.

PB: There was nothing new to address.

MP: 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?

PB: In the meantime --6 months or so-- I posted several examples that all demonstrate non-random mutations. If you have a careful look --like I did-- than you pick them out right away. I know that evo's are trying to explain them as mutations in common ancestors, but that vision cannot hold (see the 10 ZFY sequences Dr Page posted and my comments to it).
Non-random mutations can be deduced from sequences in subpopulations. They are non-random with respect to position, and often with respect to nucleotide. As soon as we find the mechanism I can address your question concerning where exactly they are introduced in original DNA. In another thread it was already mentioned that p53 often undergoes mutations on the same spots due to a mechanism that is associated with DNA sequence. So, my assertions on non-random mutations and the involvement of a mechanism that introduces them made sense. Apparently, it is something new.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 12-21-2002 4:48 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 63 (27690)
12-22-2002 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by John
12-20-2002 10:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
Originally posted by Peter:
Life developed by adapting to where it had to live.

who says?


If you moved to the artic, would you adapt or would the environment?

quote:
Peter:
The universe isn't finely tuned to support life on Earth,
life on Earth has adapted to exploit the universe.

who says?


The universe was here some 10 billion years before the Earth showed up, give or take. And the Earth was here 1.5-2 billion years before life showed up. So what do you think is adapting to what? Is the Universe and the Earth finely tuning themselves to life-- which didn't exist during most of that fine tuning process--, or is life adapting to the universe? Its a pretty simple causal relationship.


oh... that's who said... and silly me was thinking the assertions above were merely made from presuppositions


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John, posted 12-20-2002 10:15 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by John, posted 12-23-2002 1:06 AM forgiven has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 63 (27707)
12-23-2002 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by forgiven
12-22-2002 8:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
oh... that's who said... and silly me was thinking the assertions above were merely made from presuppositions

Do you have a problem with the reasoning? If so, post it. If not, why the sarcasm?

This seems an awfully shallow response, and for you, that is atypical.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[This message has been edited by John, 12-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 8:22 PM forgiven has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by forgiven, posted 12-24-2002 6:29 AM John has responded

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 4054 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 29 of 63 (27747)
12-23-2002 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Ahmad
12-07-2002 1:49 PM


quote:

Ahmad:
"They are not new, in the sense, that there is no increase in the specified complexity of the organism."

I'm not sure you want to conflate "information" and "specified complexity"; they are distinct concepts. Also, let me know which definiton of "specified complexity" you mean. Dembski has used it in several ways. Often, it means little more than the old "too complicated to happen by chance", which is an old tired argument dressed up in new clothing.

quote:

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.

Depends on your definition of "information"; but if a mutation occurs in the other copy, then by any common definition of the term there's been an increase in "information".

quote:

This suggests that the information probably already existed, and was just passed between different types of bacteria

Fascinating - you mean bacteria have always had the ability to digest nylon? Why would they have this ability when nylon is a 20th century invention? And you overlook that the mutation which produced the new nylon-digesting functionality has been identified.

quote:

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?

I DID address this question - it's a NEW, ADDITIONAL question beyond the question I was addressing - does I.C. LOGICALLY imply I.D.? Sincewe know that a a beneficial mutation is in principle possible, and that other paths other than simple addition of components are possible, we can conclude that there is no logical neccessity to conclude I.D. given I.C.

quote:

Isn't the proposed evolutionary trend supposed to be simple to complex?

No. Other than there's a "floor" to the complexity, there's no necessary direction to evolution in terms of complexity.

Ahmad presents as "positive evidence" for I.D.:

quote:

Intelligent Design in nature, Irreducible Complexity in systems, Anthropic Principle and cambrian explosion

You can't use I.D. as evidence for I.D. It's the point of this discussion that I.C. is at it's heart an argument from Ignorance (lack of a natural explanation for a system). The Anthropic Principle, even if valid, in no way explains the "design" of organisms. The Cambrian Explosion was a multi-million year event preceded by hundreds of millions of years of fossil life (most of it unicellular, some of it multicellular). And, once it again, it does nothing to "explain" apparent design. I suspect you think it disproves evolution, but again, that is not positive evidence for I.D.

quote:

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

Yes, Schraf agrees. What other atheists think might be interesting, but is irrelevant to this discussion, since neither I nor Schraf disagree with your argument here. You don't argue that it *doesn't* apply to I.D., I notice. And no, it does not make "I.D." falsifiable, in the sense of allowing evidence to count against it. Rather, it is a flaw in the reasoning of I.D.

(And yes, I'm dropping the blood-clotting stuff for now, simply because I don't have the kind of time right now necessary for a properly in-depth discussion. )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Ahmad, posted 12-07-2002 1:49 PM Ahmad has not yet responded

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 63 (27774)
12-24-2002 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by John
12-23-2002 1:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
This seems an awfully shallow response, and for you, that is atypical.

sorry... it's just that rarely have i been allowed to get away with making statements like these,

Originally posted by Peter:
Life developed by adapting to where it had to live.

The universe isn't finely tuned to support life on Earth, life on Earth has adapted to exploit the universe.

without someone coming along and accusing me of making bald assertions... it occured to me that peter had made a couple of assertions with, as far as i could tell, only his opinion to back them up... what if i change them, what if i stated as a truth claim (as he did):

God finely tuned the universe so that life would be possible on earth.

God created life on earth after having molded earth in such a way as to support that life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by John, posted 12-23-2002 1:06 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by John, posted 12-24-2002 9:38 AM forgiven has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 63 (27778)
12-24-2002 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by forgiven
12-24-2002 6:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
it occured to me that peter had made a couple of assertions with, as far as i could tell, only his opinion to back them up...

Peter didn't elaborate on the statements, though I am sure he could. I did attempt to explain the reasoning and met with sarcasm in return. So, do you have a problem with the reasoning?

quote:
God finely tuned the universe so that life would be possible on earth.

God created life on earth after having molded earth in such a way as to support that life.


The difference between your statements and Peter's is that you postulate a driving force for which we have no evidence. Peter's statements are within the bounds of what we know.

Sorry, got to go. Mommie is rushing me

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by forgiven, posted 12-24-2002 6:29 AM forgiven has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019