Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 6:43 PM
158 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (4 members, 154 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,700 Year: 2,737/19,786 Month: 819/1,918 Week: 106/301 Day: 24/54 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   How do we tell the difference, Ahmad?
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 47 of 63 (28015)
12-28-2002 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Ahmad
12-28-2002 6:48 AM


Ahmad,
quote:
A bacterial flagella has traits classifiable to an Irreducibly complex system and is positive evidence for it's non-evolvability by darwinian mechanisms. The evidence is testable and falsifiable.

Oh good. How? No unbacked assertions now!

quote:

I call that "tossing". You were always on the contention that IC systems exist and they have evolved by darwinian mechanisms, and you have also cited some papers backing up your initial claim (to which you now seem to deny). I did make claims to which I have several times verified. Darwinian mechanisms cannot account for the origin of IC systems. Consider A -->B -->C...

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:
As for petitio principii, I am not begging the question but the answer.

No, you are not, & youíve 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:
Positive evidence for the non-evolvability of 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.

For the logical fallacy ďbegging the questionĒ to be committed, we must agree the conclusion is true in order to believe the premises are true. (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/begging.htm)

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 havenít 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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Ahmad, posted 12-28-2002 6:48 AM Ahmad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 11:14 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Ahmad, posted 12-30-2002 8:59 AM mark24 has responded

    
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 63 (28020)
12-28-2002 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by mark24
12-28-2002 7:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
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.

that is fair, mark... so tell me, what is your position on ic and evolution? do you think ic systems can evolve or have evolved?

do you agree that a bacterial flagella is an example of an ic system? if so, what is your view on how or why it exists? did it evolve?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by mark24, posted 12-28-2002 7:31 AM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-30-2002 12:31 PM forgiven has not yet responded

  
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 63 (28102)
12-30-2002 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by mark24
12-28-2002 7:31 AM


quote:
Ahmad: A bacterial flagella has traits classifiable to an Irreducibly complex system and is positive evidence for it's non-evolvability by darwinian mechanisms. The evidence is testable and falsifiable.

quote:
Mark: Oh good. How? No unbacked assertions now!

If it can be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesnít invoke intelligent causes to create irreducibly complex systems when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occamís razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

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.

Once again.. you're on denial. Don't tell me its not your contention that IC systems have "evolved". Why then would you provide papers by thornhill and ussery showing the various imaginary darwinian pathways? I can support my contention and I did. You just don't accept it. You just want me to do the talking. You never provided any evidence for your latent claim of the evolvability of IC systems. I believe the burden of proof is now on you.

quote:
THEREFORE, your argument is flawed & you havenít presented positive evidence that IC cannot evolve.

This is the line of reasoning I follow:

1. Bacterial flagella is an IC system
2. These systems are unexplainable (I haven't had a single valid explanation for the evolution of IC systems) by evolution.
3. Therefore IC systems are unevolvable.

Besides, using your own logic, I can say that the "dinobird" argument is flawed too.

Your premises are that fossil record has organisms with traits of both birds and dinos.

Your conclusion is the birds evolved from dinos.

I say thats one "classic" case, too, of question-begging.

Regards,
Ahmad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by mark24, posted 12-28-2002 7:31 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Zhimbo, posted 12-30-2002 11:48 AM Ahmad has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Zhimbo, posted 12-30-2002 11:52 AM Ahmad has responded
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 12-30-2002 5:22 PM Ahmad has responded

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 4057 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 50 of 63 (28117)
12-30-2002 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Ahmad
12-30-2002 8:59 AM


quote:

Your premises are that fossil record has organisms with traits of both birds and dinos.

Ummm...premises are statements. Fossils are rocks, observable by anyone. Do you honestly deny the existence of feathered dinosaur fossils, saying they are simply "premises"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Ahmad, posted 12-30-2002 8:59 AM Ahmad has not yet responded

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 4057 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 51 of 63 (28118)
12-30-2002 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Ahmad
12-30-2002 8:59 AM


quote:

If it can be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesnít invoke intelligent causes to create irreducibly complex systems when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occamís razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

Can't you see that this line of reasoning ASSUMES I.D. to be true by default, unless shown otherwise? The problem here is that it may well be the case that Darwinian evolution fails as an explanation, but that I.D. is STILL WRONG. You assume the only possible explanations are Darwinian evolution and I.D., and assume that I.D. is true in this case until D.E. is proven.

This is one of several fundamental flaws in I.D. arguments.

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-30-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Ahmad, posted 12-30-2002 8:59 AM Ahmad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Ahmad, posted 01-02-2003 6:06 AM Zhimbo has responded

  
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 63 (28120)
12-30-2002 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by forgiven
12-28-2002 11:14 AM


quote:
that is fair, mark... so tell me, what is your position on ic and evolution? do you think ic systems can evolve or have evolved?

There is no such thing as an IC system. To say that anything is IC would automatically preclude it from havinf evolved. One of the biggest fallacies is that anny biological system comes into existance fully formed and fully functional. That is not the case. Evolution is more an example of ad hoc and jury rigged systems.

quote:
do you agree that a bacterial flagella is an example of an ic system? if so, what is your view on how or why it exists? did it evolve?

I would say that is not an IC system. Why does it exist? It gives the organism an advantage into moving around and about.

For more information of evolution of the flagellum, which is a very old structure, say 100s of millions of years ago, go here:

www.talkorgins.org and do a search on Flagellum.

------------------
When all else fails, check the manual


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 11:14 AM forgiven has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by mark24, posted 12-30-2002 6:07 PM Mr. Davies has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Weyland, posted 01-03-2003 7:47 AM Mr. Davies has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 53 of 63 (28135)
12-30-2002 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Ahmad
12-30-2002 8:59 AM


Ahmad,

quote:

Ahmad: A bacterial flagella has traits classifiable to an Irreducibly complex system and is positive evidence for it's non-evolvability by darwinian mechanisms. The evidence is testable and falsifiable.
Mark: Oh good. How? No unbacked assertions now!

quote:
If it can be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesnít invoke intelligent causes to create irreducibly complex systems when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occamís razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

Please reread the question, I didnít 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 isnít a test that they canít 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:
Figure 1.4.1. The jaws of three vertebrates - mammal, therapsid, and pelycosaur. A side view of three idealized skulls of mammals, therapsids (mammal-like reptiles), and pelycosaurs (early reptiles). The figure shows the differences between mammal and reptilian jaws and ear-bone structures. The jaw joint is shown as a large black dot, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. Note how, in the reptile, the jaw joint is formed between the blue quadrate and the yellow articular (with the pink angular close by), and how, in the mammal, the jaw joint is formed between the squamosal above and the dentary below. In the reptile, the squamosal is just above and contacting the quadrate. Advanced therapsids have two jaw joints: a reptile-like joint and a mammal-like joint (Figure based on Kardong 2002, pp. 275, reproduced with permission from the publisher, Copyright © 2002 McGraw-Hill)

In more detail, showing stratigraphy.

Fig 1.4.3

quote:
Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright © 2002 McGraw-Hill)

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:
Once again.. you're on denial. Don't tell me its not your contention that IC systems have "evolved".

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:
Why then would you provide papers by thornhill and ussery showing the various imaginary darwinian pathways?

Actually, I didnít, you linked ME to that article. Regardless, if I am required to provide a cite to counter your argument, I will do so.

quote:
I can support my contention and I did. You just don't accept it. You just want me to do the talking. You never provided any evidence for your latent claim of the evolvability of IC systems. I believe the burden of proof is now on you.

Burden of proof of what? I never said IC evolved, I am arguing that you canít show that it didnít. 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 canít 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 canít evolve. Therefore, it IS you who ďhave to do the talkingĒ, OK?

quote:

This is the line of reasoning I follow:

1. Bacterial flagella is an IC system

2. These systems are unexplainable (I haven't had a single valid explanation for the evolution of IC systems) by evolution.

3. Therefore IC systems are unevolvable.


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:

Besides, using your own logic, I can say that the "dinobird" argument is flawed too.

Your premises are that fossil record has organisms with traits of both birds and dinos.

Your conclusion is the birds evolved from dinos.

I say thats one "classic" case, too, of question-begging.


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, Iím still waiting for positive evidence that isnít 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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Ahmad, posted 12-30-2002 8:59 AM Ahmad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Ahmad, posted 01-02-2003 8:28 AM mark24 has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 54 of 63 (28139)
12-30-2002 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Mr. Davies
12-30-2002 12:31 PM


Mr Davies,

quote:
There is no such thing as an IC system. To say that anything is IC would automatically preclude it from havinf evolved. One of the biggest fallacies is that anny biological system comes into existance fully formed and fully functional. That is not the case. Evolution is more an example of ad hoc and jury rigged systems.

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:
I would say that is not an IC system. Why does it exist? It gives the organism an advantage into moving around and about.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-30-2002 12:31 PM Mr. Davies has not yet responded

    
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 63 (28279)
01-02-2003 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Zhimbo
12-30-2002 11:52 AM


Zhimbo,

quote:
Can't you see that this line of reasoning ASSUMES I.D. to be true by default, unless shown otherwise? The problem here is that it may well be the case that Darwinian evolution fails as an explanation, but that I.D. is STILL WRONG. You assume the only possible explanations are Darwinian evolution and I.D., and assume that I.D. is true in this case until D.E. is proven.

So darwinian evolution, on one hand, haven't a clue how systems like the bacterial flagellum might have evolved. On the other hand, we know that intelligence is capable of designing high-tech systems like this. Yet it is us who are guilty of arguing from ignorance and the Darwinists like you who know what really happened. Who do you think you're kidding with?

Regards,
Ahmad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Zhimbo, posted 12-30-2002 11:52 AM Zhimbo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Zhimbo, posted 01-02-2003 1:55 PM Ahmad has not yet responded

  
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 63 (28283)
01-02-2003 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by mark24
12-30-2002 5:22 PM


Mark,

quote:
Please reread the question, I didnít 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 isnít a test that they canít evolve.

I don't understand your question. As I see it, you have bacterial flagella that is IC and it can't evolve, given the darwinian evolution as the evolver.

quote:
THE MAMMALIAN EAR

The mammalian ear is at the phenotypical level, thus at this level alone it is
irrelevant to the irreducible complexity of molecular machines. Also, the
mammalian inner ear is not irreducibly complex. Thus showing a pathway to
this system is doubly irrelevant.

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.

You are entitled to your views and it's expression. Playing devil's advocate won't really do you any good, now will it? You have a mindset. No matter how much evidence I give you, it seems as though, you'll never accept it. It's better to do the research yourself.

As regards to frustration... I really am not frustrated. I try to make it a learning experience.

quote:
Actually, I didnít, you linked ME to that article. Regardless, if I am required to provide a cite to counter your argument, I will do so.

You're most welcome to do so. But in actuality, you were the one referring me to that article and you claimed to have read the actual article from some site you gave me. I linked you to good "response" to that paper.

quote:
Burden of proof of what? I never said IC evolved, I am arguing that you canít show that it didnít. 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 canít 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.

You don't understand the argument I raised. In order to declare something as impossible and provide positive evidence for it's impossibility, the known possibilities of that "something" to be possible must be dealt with first. In order to declare the evolvability of IC as impossible and to satisfy your contention by providing positive evidence for it's impossibility, you should at least provide me some chances (pathways) of it's possibility. I really don't see how it can evolve. All the data of the bacterial flagella is so highly unlikely (irreducibly complex) to coincide with the darwinian evolution. And this very specified complexity, shows the sign of an intelligent design.

quote:
Another logical fallacy! Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.( because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false.)

That's a misconception. Dembski explains it better in response to Pigliucci on a similar accusation of argumentum ad ignorantium. The theory of "specified complexity" acts as the Occam's razor and slices this accusation to pieces. For instance, the long sequence of numbers obtained, on the movie Contact (Carl Sagan), was not just complex but also exhibited an independently given pattern or specification (it was not just any old sequence of numbers but a mathematically significant one -- the prime numbers).

Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or signature -- what maybe called "specified complexity." An event exhibits specified complexity if it is contingent and therefore not necessary; if it is complex and therefore not easily repeatable by chance; and if it is specified in the sense of exhibiting an independently given pattern. Note that complexity in the sense of improbability is not sufficient to eliminate chance: flip a coin long enough, and you'll witness a highly complex or improbable event. Even so, you'll have no reason not to attribute it to chance.

The important thing about specifications is that they be objectively given and not just imposed on events after the fact. For instance, if an archer shoots arrows into a wall and we then paint bull's-eyes around them, we impose a pattern after the fact. On the other hand, if the targets are set up in advance ("specified") and then the archer hits them accurately, we know it was by design.

In applying the test of specified complexity to biological organisms, design theorists focus on identifiable systems -- such as individual enzymes, molecular machines, and the like -- that exhibit a clear function and for which complexity can be reasonably assessed. Of course, once specified complexity is exhibited by some part of an organism, then any design attributable to that part carries over to the whole organism. It is not necessary to demonstrate that every aspect of the whole organism is the result of design. Some aspects may be the result of chance or necessity.

Also see my response to Zhimbo regarding this issue. We, IDists, know how irreducibly complex molecular machines like the bacterial flagella, work and the function of each and every one of it's components that make it work. We can conclude that it is a product of Intelligent design because it has that sort of specified complexity as in the "sequence numbers" obtained. While darwinists, like you, don't have a clue as to how it "evolved" and still gasping at straws by putting imaginary pathways if the alleged "real" demonstrable does not exist. So who's really arguing from ignorance?

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 what is your point when you say that "the fossil record has examples of organisms that possess traits of both reptiles & birds,"? What are the alternative conclusions drawn from it?

quote:
So, Iím still waiting for positive evidence that isnít logically flawed, of the impossibility of IC systems to evolve.

And I am still waiting for it's lightest shred of possibility.

Regards,
Ahmad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 12-30-2002 5:22 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Zhimbo, posted 01-02-2003 2:00 PM Ahmad has not yet responded
 Message 60 by mark24, posted 01-02-2003 6:58 PM Ahmad has not yet responded
 Message 63 by mark24, posted 01-07-2003 4:02 PM Ahmad has not yet responded

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 4057 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 57 of 63 (28313)
01-02-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Ahmad
01-02-2003 6:06 AM


I'm sorry, did you address my point???? All you do is assert that Darwinism fails to explain something.

Fine, let's assume that Darwinism doesn't work for the bacterial flagellum. How does this provide evidence FOR I.D.?

It doesn't, unless you assume there are only 2 alternatives.

So, let me repeat:

Can't you see that this line of reasoning ASSUMES I.D. to be true by default, unless shown otherwise? The problem here is that it may well be the case that Darwinian evolution fails as an explanation, but that I.D. is STILL WRONG. You assume the only possible explanations are Darwinian evolution and I.D., and assume that I.D. is true in this case until D.E. is proven.

This time, address the logic. Do you think my characterization of this line of reasoning is flawed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Ahmad, posted 01-02-2003 6:06 AM Ahmad has not yet responded

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 4057 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 58 of 63 (28314)
01-02-2003 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Ahmad
01-02-2003 8:28 AM


quote:

"I don't understand your question. As I see it, you have bacterial flagella that is IC and it can't evolve, given the darwinian evolution as the evolver."

Again, you ASSERT that IC means Darwinism can't work. That's not good enough. How do you TEST this ASSERTION?

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 01-02-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Ahmad, posted 01-02-2003 8:28 AM Ahmad has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 01-02-2003 6:29 PM Zhimbo has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 59 of 63 (28329)
01-02-2003 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Zhimbo
01-02-2003 2:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Zhimbo:
quote:

"I don't understand your question. As I see it, you have bacterial flagella that is IC and it can't evolve, given the darwinian evolution as the evolver."

Again, you ASSERT that IC means Darwinism can't work. That's not good enough. How do you TEST this ASSERTION?

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 01-02-2003]


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Zhimbo, posted 01-02-2003 2:00 PM Zhimbo has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 60 of 63 (28330)
01-02-2003 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Ahmad
01-02-2003 8:28 AM


Ahmad,

quote:
I don't understand your question. As I see it, you have bacterial flagella that is IC and it can't evolve, given the darwinian evolution as the evolver.

The point of this thread is THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW, & HAVE BEEN UTTERLY UNABLE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM THAT IT DIDNíT!! 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 donít write the rules. If you wish to rewrite what constitutes a logically fallacious argument maybe you should try elsewhere.

quote:
The mammalian ear is at the phenotypical level, thus at this level alone it is irrelevant to the irreducible complexity of molecular machines. Also, the mammalian inner ear is not irreducibly complex. Thus showing a pathway to this system is doubly irrelevant.

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 ďphenotypic levelĒ? It doesnít, not at all. For the record, the flagellum itself is at the ďphenotypic levelĒ. 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:

You are entitled to your views and it's expression. Playing devil's advocate won't really do you any good, now will it? You have a mindset. No matter how much evidence I give you, it seems as though, you'll never accept it. It's better to do the research yourself.
As regards to frustration... I really am not frustrated. I try to make it a learning experience.

Your arguments are logically fallacious, therefore you have no valid evidence, should it be based upon such arguments, which it is.

quote:
You don't understand the argument I raised. In order to declare something as impossible and provide positive evidence for it's impossibility, the known possibilities of that "something" to be possible must be dealt with first. In order to declare the evolvability of IC as impossible and to satisfy your contention by providing positive evidence for it's impossibility, you should at least provide me some chances (pathways) of it's possibility.

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 donít have to provide either.

quote:

I really don't see how it can evolve. All the data of the bacterial flagella is so highly unlikely (irreducibly complex) to coincide with the darwinian evolution. And this very specified complexity, shows the sign of an intelligent design.

Argument from incredulity, another fallacy. Full circle.

quote:
Mark:Another logical fallacy! Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.( because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false.)

quote:

That's a misconception.

It isnít a misconception. Let me remind you of your statement:

quote:
This is the line of reasoning I follow:
1. Bacterial flagella is an IC system
2. These systems are unexplainable (I haven't had a single valid explanation for the evolution of IC systems) by evolution.
3. Therefore IC systems are unevolvable.

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 ďargument from ignoranceĒ.

I donít 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:
So what is your point when you say that "the fossil record has examples of organisms that possess traits of both reptiles & birds,"? What are the alternative conclusions drawn from it?

Couldnít 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 isnít fallacious. Positive evidence does not necessarily = truth. This is how science works, Ahmed, I thought you were studying science? Show me an electron.

quote:
Mark: So, Iím still waiting for positive evidence that isnít logically flawed, of the impossibility of IC systems to evolve.

quote:
Ahmad: And I am still waiting for it's lightest shred of possibility.

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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Ahmad, posted 01-02-2003 8:28 AM Ahmad has not yet responded

    
Weyland
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 63 (28343)
01-03-2003 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Mr. Davies
12-30-2002 12:31 PM


There's a nice atricle on Flagella here:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-30-2002 12:31 PM Mr. Davies has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019