Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe on organismal evolution
JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 57 (148607)
10-09-2004 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by PaulK
10-08-2004 12:55 PM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
For the last sentence, if ID's explanation is "God did it" with no further explanation then ID is not science - it's theology and not very good theology at that.>>
The same could be said about the "evolution did it" stance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2004 12:55 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 10-09-2004 5:16 AM JasonChin has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 57 (148617)
10-09-2004 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by JasonChin
10-09-2004 4:22 AM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
Evolutionary science has never stopped with "evolution did it".
After all you've already been pointed to evolutionary explanations of some systems which are more detailed than that. So you know that your insinuation is a complete falsehood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by JasonChin, posted 10-09-2004 4:22 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by JasonChin, posted 10-10-2004 5:13 AM PaulK has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 33 of 57 (148641)
10-09-2004 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by JasonChin
10-07-2004 7:22 AM


Re: Andya Primanda
quote:
Personally, I think it would be of great benefit to have academics from non-Christian backgrounds and even agnostic or atheistic backgrounds, if it were possible, supporting ID and IC. Then it would make it harder for the theory's detractors to write it off as creationism is disguise.
Well, that's the thing about science. The application of it's tenets and methods is the same no matter what one's religious leanings are.
It is the degree to which the evidence for a theory holds up to rational scrutiny which determines the validity of a theory, not the personal philosophy of the scientist.
So, when you see scientists of one particular religious bent putting forth an idea which is not supported by the rest of the scientific community, your pseudoscience alarm should be ringing loudly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by JasonChin, posted 10-07-2004 7:22 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by JasonChin, posted 10-10-2004 5:17 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 34 of 57 (148643)
10-09-2004 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by JasonChin
10-08-2004 11:04 AM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
quote:
However, I think ANY fair-minded person's intuition would tell you that IC systems evolving would be extremely unlikely.
1) Scientific theories are not supported by "intuition", but by evidence.
2) How can you calculate the odds of IC systems evolving or not?
The problem with the idea that IC systems cannot evolve is that it is based upon the false premise that evolution proceeds in a step by step fashion, with one component added at a time.
This is false. It has long been understood that Evolution may add components and it may take components away. It does not operate in a linear fashoin.
Therefore, the original premise is false.
quote:
When proposing metaphysics as a cause, supplying more detail would not only be superfluous, but absurd. However, when proposing naturalistic function as a cause.......
Take a stone arch.
They are IC. Take away one stone or brick and the entire arch collapses. Are stone arches therefore a great mystery and must it be determined that the supernatural must be invoked to explain them?
Stone arches are constructed using support systems to hold the stones or bricks in place as they are laid or fitted. Once they are in place, the support structures are removed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 11:04 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by JasonChin, posted 10-10-2004 5:24 AM nator has replied

  
JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 57 (148817)
10-10-2004 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
10-09-2004 5:16 AM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
Evolutionary science has never stopped with "evolution did it".>>
And ID never just says "God did it". It says "evolution most likely didn't do it, so God did it".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 10-09-2004 5:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by JasonChin, posted 10-10-2004 5:14 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 10-10-2004 10:21 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 10-10-2004 11:21 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 57 (148821)
10-10-2004 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by JasonChin
10-10-2004 5:13 AM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
BTW, if natural selection was so capable of making these incredible IC systems, then why couldn't it produce anything more complex than a jelly fish for about 3.5 billion years, up until the Cambrian Explosion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by JasonChin, posted 10-10-2004 5:13 AM JasonChin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 10-10-2004 10:35 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 57 (148823)
10-10-2004 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
10-09-2004 9:32 AM


Re: Andya Primanda
It is the degree to which the evidence for a theory holds up to rational scrutiny which determines the validity of a theory, not the personal philosophy of the scientist.>>
In theory, yes.........in practice, it's quite a different story.
So, when you see scientists of one particular religious bent putting forth an idea which is not supported by the rest of the scientific community, your pseudoscience alarm should be ringing loudly.>>
Isn't it possible that the religious bent of these scientists is the RESULT of scientific discovery?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 10-09-2004 9:32 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 10-10-2004 9:51 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 10-10-2004 10:41 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2004 1:23 PM JasonChin has not replied

  
JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 57 (148827)
10-10-2004 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by nator
10-09-2004 9:44 AM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
1) Scientific theories are not supported by "intuition", but by evidence.>>
There's as much evidence for ID as for evolution.
2) How can you calculate the odds of IC systems evolving or not?>>
I dunno........there probably isn't a way, which is why neither side tries to use it as a trump card.
The problem with the idea that IC systems cannot evolve is that it is based upon the false premise that evolution proceeds in a step by step fashion, with one component added at a time.>>
It's impossible for evolution to work faster than one step at a time.........if it does so, it is entirely by coincidence and not by selection effect. Therefore, I don't see how anyone can whole heartedly support the idea that certain components of an IC system just HAPPENED to evolve side by side.
Take a stone arch.
They are IC. Take away one stone or brick and the entire arch collapses. Are stone arches therefore a great mystery and must it be determined that the supernatural must be invoked to explain them?
Stone arches are constructed using support systems to hold the stones or bricks in place as they are laid or fitted. Once they are in place, the support structures are removed.>>
That's a terrible analogy, because stone archs are the product of intelligent design........
This message has been edited by JasonChin, 10-10-2004 04:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nator, posted 10-09-2004 9:44 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 10-10-2004 10:15 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2004 1:29 PM JasonChin has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 57 (148849)
10-10-2004 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by JasonChin
10-10-2004 5:17 AM


Re: Andya Primanda
It is the degree to which the evidence for a theory holds up to rational scrutiny which determines the validity of a theory, not the personal philosophy of the scientist.
quote:
In theory, yes.........in practice, it's quite a different story.
It is? That's news to me. Perhaps you could provide a couple of examples of scientific theories which have good evidenciary support from multiple disciplines which are not also supported by the scientific community. Or, provide examples of scientific theories which are not supported by multiple lines of evidence which are supported by the scientific community.
So, when you see scientists of one particular religious bent putting forth an idea which is not supported by the rest of the scientific community, your pseudoscience alarm should be ringing loudly.
quote:
Isn't it possible that the religious bent of these scientists is the RESULT of scientific discovery?
Yes, it's possible, but I am not talking about the many religious people who are also scientists. I personally know at least two scientists who are deeply religious, but they keep their personal religious convictions out of their scientific investigations. They do not use one to try to legitimize or "prove" the other.
I am talking about the scientists who claim that ID is scientific. It is not.
Remember what I said regarding science in my previous reply to you:
The application of it's tenets and methods is the same no matter what one's religious leanings are.
The ID proponents are not applying the tenets of science to their idea correctly because they are all of a similar religious bent and they are all trying to use science to prove that their god exists.
Pseudoscience alarm bells are ringing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by JasonChin, posted 10-10-2004 5:17 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 57 (148851)
10-10-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by JasonChin
10-10-2004 5:24 AM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
1) Scientific theories are not supported by "intuition", but by evidence.
quote:
There's as much evidence for ID as for evolution.
First of all, you have changed the subject. Your point was that a "fair minded" peron's "intuition" tells them that the evolution of IC systems is extremely unlikely.
I was making the point that "intuition" is not a valid scientific argument.
Secod, perhaps you could outline for me how I can tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural on that we
1) do not currently understand but will in the future, or
2) will never have the ability to understand?
2) How can you calculate the odds of IC systems evolving or not?
quote:
I dunno........there probably isn't a way, which is why neither side tries to use it as a trump card.
But you just did!
You just said how a fair-minded person's intuition would consider the evolution of IC systems as extremely unlikely. This means you are arguing that the odds are unlikely that IC systems could have evolved.
If you now say that there is no way to calculate the odds, then why did you make any claim at all about what is "likely" or not?
The problem with the idea that IC systems cannot evolve is that it is based upon the false premise that evolution proceeds in a step by step fashion, with one component added at a time.
quote:
It's impossible for evolution to work faster than one step at a time
Not true.
James Meritt's General Anti-Creationism FAQ: Chaos and Complexity
ID claim: The repeated occurrence of changes calling for numerous coordinated innovations, both at the level of organs and of complete organisms.
First, how do you determine that "numerous coordinated innovations" are required? That may merely be your evaluation. For instance, some of the common examples:
poisonous snakes - fangs & poison glands.
A Gila monster has poison glands with no fangs, and there are snakes with furrowed fangs with no poison glands.
fish to land animal - legs and lungs.
The mudpuppy is a fish without lungs that goes on the land, and the ceoclanth (sp) has almost legs with no lungs. And then there is the African Lungfish, the floridian walking catfish,...
And how many of these "numerous coordinated innovations" can be caused by one change? Check out, for instance, the effect of changing the age at which bone growth stops in human beings.
This needs to be elaborated. If a genome is being stressed to some metastable level where its states can multiply, then rapid changes to more than one structure in the organism can occur simultaneously.[/b][qs]
quote:
if it does so, it is entirely by coincidence and not by selection effect.
As I have shown above, that statement is incorrect.
quote:
Therefore, I don't see how anyone can whole heartedly support the idea that certain components of an IC system just HAPPENED to evolve side by side.
Perhaps you might want to do a bit more study of evolutionary theory before you embrace a non-scientific notion.
Take a stone arch.
They are IC. Take away one stone or brick and the entire arch collapses. Are stone arches therefore a great mystery and must it be determined that the supernatural must be invoked to explain them?
Stone arches are constructed using support systems to hold the stones or bricks in place as they are laid or fitted. Once they are in place, the support structures are removed.
quote:
That's a terrible analogy, because stone archs are the product of intelligent design
But they are irreducably complex without needing supernatural forces to contruct them.
I have shown you that evolution does not require a linear, one by one addition of features to a system for the system to evolve. This makes the IC as evidence of ID premise false, correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by JasonChin, posted 10-10-2004 5:24 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 41 of 57 (148855)
10-10-2004 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by JasonChin
10-10-2004 5:13 AM


GotG
And ID never just says "God did it". It says "evolution most likely didn't do it, so God did it".
And this is the already very over used God of the Gaps concept. It is very bad theology and lously logic.
Over and over we have stuffed a god into some gap in our knowledge (the source of lightening, earthquakes, disease) and over and over it proved as we learned more to be wrong.
Not knowing how something happended does not leave God as the solution. It simply leaves and unknown. The oft repeated pattern is that we find the solution without any requirement for a god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by JasonChin, posted 10-10-2004 5:13 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 42 of 57 (148857)
10-10-2004 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by JasonChin
10-10-2004 5:14 AM


A good Question
BTW, if natural selection was so capable of making these incredible IC systems, then why couldn't it produce anything more complex than a jelly fish for about 3.5 billion years, up until the Cambrian Explosion?
This is actually a pretty darn good question.
It is slightly off since complex things arose sometime before the Cambrian and we are only just finding a few traces. That pushes the time back to somewhere like 600 myr ago. In addtion life seems to have arisin somewhere just over 3.5 gyr ago so the correct time is about 3 billion not 3.5 billion but for this discussion the half billion years isn't really germane.
It also is slightly wrong (but perhaps a major misunderstanding) when it says "natural selection". That should be mutations; they give rise to novelty and NS keeps some of the new forms.
Without selective pressures to keep novelty that arises it doesn't get a foothold. I've read suggestions that the snowball earth time of 600 million years ago was the selctive conditions that pushed more complex life.
It may also be that you (and perhaps all of us) are still stuck with our view of life. Most life (very nearly ALL on a count or mass basis) is still "simple". Almost everything on the planet is a bacteirum or virus. The apparent "big deal" of muticellurlar forms rising may be just one little bump that didn't really need to arise for life to do very well.
The quesion also suggests that the step to very simple but somewhat differentiated forms (like worms) isn't a big step while from worms to us is. That may not be really right. It is clear from the physical form and, more, from the genetics that the step from a mouse-like thing to us is not a big step at all. Perhaps (but I don't know enough to really say) that the step from a simple worm to a mouse-like things is a small step too. But the step from green algae to that simplest form of pre cambrian life IS a big deal after all so it took a long time.
Remember, our genetic make up is set up to form novelty with every single individual this may allow evolution to happen faster.
I don't think there is an answer to the real question though. But, as noted, don't go inserting a God in the gap. We keep closing them and it forces you to have a smaller and smaller god as the gaps shrink.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by JasonChin, posted 10-10-2004 5:14 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 43 of 57 (148861)
10-10-2004 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by JasonChin
10-10-2004 5:17 AM


Re: Andya Primanda
In theory, yes.........in practice, it's quite a different story.
You'll have to back this up with some details. However it would require a separate thread. I'd suggest one in "Is It Science" with a title like "Scientists whose Personal Philosophies Affected Preceived Validity of Theories".
You'll have to kick it off with defintions of the terms (philosophy and validity) and at least a couple of examples. That's a lot of work so you can leave it for now.
Isn't it possible that the religious bent of these scientists is the RESULT of scientific discovery?
This one also would have to have a separate thread. It's a little harder to know where to put it but I think "Is it Science" again. Topic title could be "Scientific Discoveries that Lead to Religious Views"
It seems to me that this one should be easier to support than the other one. It doesn't, unlike the other, have to be shown to be a wide spread, consensus thing, it just has to be shown that individual scientists went through this. You could quote the writings of a few.
This discussion can carry on without those new threads but without them this post of yours doesn't carry any weight at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by JasonChin, posted 10-10-2004 5:17 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 44 of 57 (148872)
10-10-2004 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by JasonChin
10-10-2004 5:13 AM


Re: Proteins for Fossils
Yawn, do you have to indulge in these transparent evasions ?
So far you've tried to excuse the lack of explanations from ID on the grounds that the ID explanation is "God did it" (which is NOT the official line in the first place).
You then try to deal with the other problems I pointed out by trying to insinuate that evolutionary science doesn't offer explanations either - even though you know it isn't true.
And now you try to evade THAT with silly games.
I see your future - a one way ticket to the Boot Camp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by JasonChin, posted 10-10-2004 5:13 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 57 (148909)
10-10-2004 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by JasonChin
10-10-2004 5:17 AM


Isn't it possible that the religious bent of these scientists is the RESULT of scientific discovery?
Maybe, but it never has been.
Every creationist who used to be a scientist became a Christian first, and then was convinced that the Bible had to be literally true if their faith was to have validity.
In other words, what you claim has never been the case - the "evidence" for creationism has never convinced anyone but those who had already decided they had to believe it.
You're free to try to prove me wrong, though. Find a bio where it was the evidence and not the dogma that convinced a biologist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by JasonChin, posted 10-10-2004 5:17 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024