Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 4:13 AM
24 online now:
Pressie (1 member, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Author Topic:   Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 4787 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 256 of 292 (231514)
08-09-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Chiroptera
08-09-2005 4:23 PM


Re: Talking Points
What does your watch have to do with biology... surely you don't consider watches to be alive.

I once saw a watch made entirely from glass ... so I guess glass could substitute for your iron atoms prima facia.

In fact a watch can be made from a lot of materials other than iron.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2005 4:23 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2005 4:35 PM Evopeach has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6649
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 257 of 292 (231519)
08-09-2005 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 4:31 PM


Re: Talking Points
I'm just pointing out that you do not understand Behe's concept of irreducibly complex. Your post is further evidence of that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 4:31 PM Evopeach has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 4:57 PM Chiroptera has responded

Trixie
Member (Idle past 1879 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 258 of 292 (231522)
08-09-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 3:51 PM


Re: Talking Points
You said
Is carbon 12 irreducibly complex of course because if you remove the electrons, protons or neutrons you no longer have a carbon atom. I did not say one electron or whatever, as between isotopes, I said all of any one type of particle whichever.

You also said

Now we have identified a component ubiquitous throughout each and every living entity, carbon ,which is itself irreducibly complex.

It is apparent that the designer used a unique and particular component for creating every form of life and that the component is not reducable itself if it is to continue its function and idenity.

Are you trying to say that carbon alone of all the elements is IC and the others aren't? Surely the same applies to them. Does this mean that nitrogen has been intelligently designed? Oxygen, calcium, silicon? What about compounds like NaCl? Intelligently designed salt???????????

Edited to put in missing quote

This message has been edited by Trixie, 08-09-2005 04:47 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 3:51 PM Evopeach has not yet responded

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 4787 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 259 of 292 (231531)
08-09-2005 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Chiroptera
08-09-2005 4:35 PM


Re: Talking Points
A theory must include so called special cases otherwise it is falsified by that special case. In fact that is what is meant by a falsification experiment. You set up a particular test condition that is intended to see if the theory actually behaves the way it predicts or explains a phenomena or that it can be continued to be accepted in its current form given the outcome of the particular experiment.

Now evolution posits that there are no living irreducibly complex systems in that every such system can be accounted for by a series of less complex "versions" which never the less performs adequate to the tasks required of it. If ever there is a system which cannot perform in a state where one component is removed then that system is IC. That system was designed since it cannot be accounted for by undesigned evolutionary criteria namely staged development by change over time through of series of adaptations which at any one stage are living and quite functional though in a less demanding way perhaps yet easily connected to the current more complex instant state.

In my special case I simply remove all the carbon atoms from the living entity and see how it performs.

Can the system be mutationally related to a slightly ever so slightly less functional version which works just fine by substituting another element for the carbon or one that functions using only those parts which have no carbon atoms in them yet performing all needed functionality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2005 4:35 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2005 5:11 PM Evopeach has responded
 Message 261 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 5:12 PM Evopeach has responded
 Message 262 by Trixie, posted 08-09-2005 5:13 PM Evopeach has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6649
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 260 of 292 (231535)
08-09-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 4:57 PM


Re: Talking Points
quote:
Now evolution posits that there are no living irreducibly complex systems in that every such system can be accounted for by a series of less complex "versions" which never the less performs adequate to the tasks required of it.

This is a very different definition of "irreducibly complex" than you have already given, to wit:

"a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". (Michael Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference)

Do you see the difference between these two definitions? If not I can explain the difference in a little more detail.

-

quote:
If ever there is a system which cannot perform in a state where one component is removed then that system is IC.

What do you mean by "one component"? If you mean "any one component", then that is the same as Behe's definition. If you mean "one particular component" then that is neither of the definitions you have now given.

-

quote:
In my special case I simply remove all the carbon atoms from the living entity and see how it performs.

Not only do I think that Behe did not intend for "all the carbon atoms" to count as a "component", but picking this one particular example of a "component" to remove does not show that the living entity is "irreducibly complex" by either of the definitions you have given. Do you see why? If not, I can explain in more detail why this does not establish that either definition applies to a "living entity".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 4:57 PM Evopeach has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 5:52 PM Chiroptera has responded

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 4787 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 261 of 292 (231537)
08-09-2005 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 4:57 PM


Re: Talking Points
It applies to all the elements which are necessary for any and every form of life to exist and be change related back to the original life form over time yet being functional at every stage.

Is there one other than carbon that is universally accepted as such?

Five stand out as such: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus. I am not aware of others.

They are unique and IC thats why they are called elements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 4:57 PM Evopeach has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Trixie, posted 08-09-2005 5:21 PM Evopeach has not yet responded
 Message 264 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 5:24 PM Evopeach has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1879 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 262 of 292 (231539)
08-09-2005 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 4:57 PM


Re: Talking Points
As you said and I quoted above
It is apparent that the designer used a unique and particular component for creating every form of life and that the component is not reducable itself if it is to continue its function and idenity.

Have you thought of removing all the hydrogen? How about nitrogen? How about phosporous? How about oxygen? If you get a different outcome then your hypothesis of carbon being unique and particular survives. If you get the same outcome your hypothesis falls flat on it's face.

I predict that the outcome will be the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 4:57 PM Evopeach has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 6:05 PM Trixie has not yet responded

Trixie
Member (Idle past 1879 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 263 of 292 (231542)
08-09-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 5:12 PM


Re: Talking Points
So uranium isn't an element. Glad we cleared that up. There are only five elements in the periodic table. Erm..........what are the rest of the "things" in the periodic table?

How about potassium, sodium, calcium?

How about iron? Sulphur? If you remove these a heck of a lot of life forms will pop their clogs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 5:12 PM Evopeach has not yet responded

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 4787 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 264 of 292 (231545)
08-09-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 5:12 PM


Re: Talking Points
I cannot read Behe's mind as to the full definition of IC, surely more involved than the few examples he gave for certain.

The first paragraph you noted actually contains the words Irreducibly Comlpex and so cannot be an alternate definition in any literate sense. It is a restatement of darwins statement of falsification in the current context of IC.

Since only one is a definition that which does not contain the words themselves..........well hmmmm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 5:12 PM Evopeach has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2005 5:39 PM Evopeach has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6649
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 265 of 292 (231553)
08-09-2005 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 5:24 PM


Re: Talking Points
Are you referring to my post? It's hard to tell since you replied to your own post, and your writing is muddled enough that it isn't often clear what you actually mean.

I will assume that you meant to reply to this post; please correct me if I am mistaken.

Let's see, the "first paragraph I noted" was"

Now evolution posits that there are no living irreducibly complex systems in that every such system can be accounted for by a series of less complex "versions" which never the less performs adequate to the tasks required of it.

Let us parse your sentence.

Now evolution posits that there are no living irreducibly complex systems...

Okay, this is the main clause of your sentence. It contains the main idea of your sentence.

...in that...

Now you are introducing a subordinate clause. This clause will be an adjectival clause, and will describe what you mean by "living irreducibly complex systems".

...every such system can be accounted for by a series of less complex "versions" which never the less performs adequate to the tasks required of it.

This is the subordinate, adjectival clause that exresses what you mean by "living irreducibly complex systems." In other words, you are clarifying what you mean by "living irreducibly complex systems". You are telling the reader what you mean by "living irreducibly complex system"; in other words, you are offering a definition. A definition that, as it so happens, differs from Behe's.

Maybe this is not what you intended to say, but it is what you wrote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 5:24 PM Evopeach has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 266 of 292 (231557)
08-09-2005 5:47 PM


Just a reminder...
Please any responsible adults out there?

Adults please

You have to have a little imagination for the analogy .. in case your not up to it let me know

I think this sort of obfuscation and meaningless assertion is not worth my time.

any real adults out there

Now that's my consulting and pedagogical task for you today, a po;lite thank you would be appreciated

Nice try but no bananas

The idea is to address logically the actual debate point.

Opps hopeless as demonstrated

I sort my replies in order of stupidity so yours generally take a while to address.

Let me know when things get a little over your head sweety I am really here to help you get a grip

Electrostatics and quantum mechanics ... hmmm oh I get it when you rubbed that cat fur on the glass rod you thought of the dead or alive cat problem from QM. Wow clever.

Engineering Physics and Systems Engineering I wanted to learn everything in those degrees you mentioned plus the knowledge to apply it to something practical useful and real world.

Now go ahead and include long division in your posts, its ok

Stand back and look realistically ... from your camp that's a laugh.

well lets say back to the books kiddies.

Do a little homework for once

If you are telling me that base pairs in DNA are not amino acids I am lost as to why you felt the need. Certainly not on any post I made.

I recommend "Systems Engineering by Chesnutt" its the oldie but goodie and will I think really assist your thinking on these more complex planes.

For you its the Dick, Jane and Spot school of reading

Oh and you're a CPM linear thinker from the evo world with his head up his butt so far you can't see daylight

Having just read over this entire thread, I'm speechless...

WK, Chirop, Yaro, Trixie... your patience humbles me ;)


Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Yaro, posted 08-09-2005 6:05 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 4787 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 267 of 292 (231560)
08-09-2005 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Chiroptera
08-09-2005 5:11 PM


Re: Talking Points
PLease.. again one used the words irreducibly complex and so cannot be a definition of same. Rather a restatement of darwins statement of what would constitute falsification of his theory..

Of course there different.. one is Behe's definition.. the other relates a historical statement as to falsification to Beje's definition.

Really


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2005 5:11 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2005 6:01 PM Evopeach has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6649
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 268 of 292 (231562)
08-09-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 5:52 PM


Re: Talking Points
So you are saying that you have used the phrase "in that" inappropriately. Good. Let us proceed.

Now tell us how your "carbon atom" thing shows that Darwinian evolution is wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 5:52 PM Evopeach has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 6:17 PM Chiroptera has responded

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 4787 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 269 of 292 (231566)
08-09-2005 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Trixie
08-09-2005 5:13 PM


Re: Talking Points
Referring to my post called Talking Points I did not say carbon was unique to the proposal at all in fact the other essential to life elements when removed would very likely cause the same effects.

That strengthens the hypothesis .. there are five such subsystems which if removed result in utter failure of the life system.. not just one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Trixie, posted 08-09-2005 5:13 PM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-09-2005 6:23 PM Evopeach has responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4669 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 270 of 292 (231567)
08-09-2005 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by cavediver
08-09-2005 5:47 PM


Re: Just a reminder...
WK, Chirop, Yaro, Trixie... your patience humbles me

Heheh, I got an admin warning when I lost it early on this thread :D

That's why I have avoided talking with this guy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by cavediver, posted 08-09-2005 5:47 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2005 6:12 PM Yaro has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019