|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,818 Year: 4,075/9,624 Month: 946/974 Week: 273/286 Day: 34/46 Hour: 6/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do we tell the difference, Ahmad? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
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? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
quote: 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 doesn’t invoke intelligent causes to create irreducibly complex systems when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam’s razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.
quote: 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: This is the line of reasoning I follow: 1. Bacterial flagella is an IC system2. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6038 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
quote: 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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6038 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
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. This is one of several fundamental flaws in I.D. arguments. [This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Davies Inactive Member |
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.
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. For more information of evolution of the flagellum, which is a very old structure, say 100s of millions of years ago, go here: http://www.talkorgins.org and do a search on Flagellum. ------------------When all else fails, check the manual
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 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 5222 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Zhimbo,
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Mark,
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.
quote: The mammalian ear is at the phenotypical level, thus at this level alone it isirrelevant 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: And I am still waiting for it's lightest shred of possibility. Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6038 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6038 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 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 5222 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Weyland Inactive Member |
There's a nice atricle on Flagella here:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024