Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
44 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), WookieeB (8 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,886 Year: 18,922/19,786 Month: 1,342/1,705 Week: 148/446 Day: 44/104 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2384 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 361 of 438 (517890)
08-03-2009 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by traderdrew
08-02-2009 1:11 PM


TTSS, an open question?
Remember, if the TTSS devolved from the flagellum, then I am back to square one.

I hadn't been following this part of the argument but looking at the recent literature I think there is a good chance that both you and Perdition are wrong and that in fact the TTSS and the bacterial flagellum, rather than one being ancestral to the other, merely share a common ancestor (Gophna et al., 2003). The exact relationship still seems to be in doubt though (Macnab, 2004).

Macnab, 2004 writes:

This brings us back to the question of the evolutionary relationship between the flagellar export system and the virulence factor secretion system. Comparative phylogenetic analyses have been carried out on the two systems [70]. This study concludes that there is no intermingling, i.e., the two systems evolved separately. Thus, all FlhA proteins lie on one major branch from the root and all LcrD (the homologous or, more strictly, paralogous) proteins on the other. However, it is not easy to explain the substantial preservation of gene organization on this theory. Also, although the two systems are obviously related functionally, they are not identical, and it is perhaps reasonable to expect that orthologs within one system would resemble each other more closely than they resemble their paralogs in the other system.

As the above discussion indicates, there is much about the evolution of type III systems that remains mysterious.

For a more recent look at theories of flagellar evolution see Snyder et al. (2008), who similarly conclude ...

Snyder er al., 2008 writes:

unravelling the intricacies of flagellar structure, function and evolution is going to keep researchers busy for many years to come.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by traderdrew, posted 08-02-2009 1:11 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 11:10 AM Wounded King has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 362 of 438 (517898)
08-03-2009 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by traderdrew
08-02-2009 1:11 PM


Re: Flatfish an ID Perspective
Somehow that analogy between comparing unfortunate genetic accidents (extra sets of body parts) and building fundamentally new irreducibly complex systems seems to be quite a stretch.

No such analogy was made. Re-read the statement to which you are ostensibly replying.

You haven't read my ID counter to the evidence. With shellfish, you can have a series of what appears to be changes but there could be problems with this. It doesn't factor any possible ecophenotypic variations that can effect the development of structures of shellfish. Some seashells in one particular ecological habitat could turn out to look a little bit different in another.

That's a little ad hoc, isn't it? How many ecological habitats are there in Chesapeake Bay, and do the shellfish in these various habitats show the variation required by your excuse?

I have read different views of archeopteryx (not in ID books) but in evolution books. "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne, says its a reptile and a fancy book (forget the name) on prehistoric birds and precursors of birds says that archeopteryx is a true bird. What is the matter here?

Intermediate forms, by their nature, are hard to shoehorn into modern categories. This is why creationists are equally divided on whether to call it a reptile or a modern bird --- despite their mutual conviction that it is not in any way intermediate between the two.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by traderdrew, posted 08-02-2009 1:11 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 1:26 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3444 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 363 of 438 (517929)
08-03-2009 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by Wounded King
08-03-2009 6:43 AM


Re: TTSS, an open question?
From your link: Our analysis indicates that the TTSS and the flagellar export mechanism share a common ancestor, but have evolved independently from one another.

Actually "Signature in the Cell" also quoted something that says something similar to this. This could be considered to be a separate ID prediction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Wounded King, posted 08-03-2009 6:43 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Wounded King, posted 08-03-2009 2:36 PM traderdrew has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3444 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 364 of 438 (517937)
08-03-2009 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Coyote
08-02-2009 3:31 PM


Re: Flatfish an ID Perspective
I can't blame you for your quick defense of one of the icons of your religion Coyote along with others here. After all, there was a scientist who fell to his knees before a fossil of an archaeopteryx at a museum in England. (National Geographic Jan, 1993) Of all of the things I wrote in my post you guys came to the defense of an icon of evolution.

It was in the book "Feather Dinosaurs" where I swore I saw that it stated that it was a true bird. It is a nice book by the way with some very nice color artists impressions of what many feathered dinosaurs may have looked like. To me archaeopteryx looks like it is very capable of flight but what do I know about them?

According to your religion, it is a transitional and I can see that. Using your paradigm, I can also see that it also could have been an offshoot of a lineage or a first attempt that went extinct on the way to evolving birds. There are other birds that lived 120 million years ago or so those could be contenders as missing links.

"Why Evolution is True" says that it is unlikely that archaeopteryx is the missing link.

Of course, science is critical of itself and surely scientists would have thought of the same things that I have but ONLY if it uses present natural causes as a way to explain the past. It would never possibly allow an intelligent designer to play a role in common descent. This is where assemblism starts to play a role in my paradigms.

Maybe the intelligent designer (not necessarily breaking natural laws) could have used a part of the genetic structure of archaeopteryx and placed it in another organism for the purposes of modification.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2009 3:31 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Coyote, posted 08-03-2009 1:19 PM traderdrew has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 365 of 438 (517950)
08-03-2009 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by traderdrew
08-03-2009 11:42 AM


Creation "science" again
You forfeit any semblance of a rational argument when you call evolution a "religion" and fossils "icons."

Try again, leaving out the nonsense, if you want a response.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 11:42 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 1:36 PM Coyote has responded

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3444 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 366 of 438 (517951)
08-03-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Dr Adequate
08-03-2009 7:18 AM


Re: Flatfish an ID Perspective
That's a little ad hoc, isn't it? How many ecological habitats are there in Chesapeake Bay, and do the shellfish in these various habitats show the variation required by your excuse?

I just did some research on it. There is a genus is called Chesapecten. Here is a quote from the net:

Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change.

I can't find anywhere where it says they evolved outside of their genus. It sounds like microevolution to me. They are all Chesapectens. I'm dropping further reseach on it for now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2009 7:18 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3444 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 367 of 438 (517952)
08-03-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Coyote
08-03-2009 1:19 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
You forfeit any semblance of a rational argument when you call evolution a "religion" and fossils "icons."

That suits me just fine. I just haven't found the logic that says you can call ID a religion when ID hasn't informed us of any religious rituals to perform. Once again, advocates of ID can either be Jewish, Muslim, or Christian or even agnostic and even atheists-(guided transpermia). Therefore, religion could be defined as belief without the necessity of any particular rituals or practices.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Coyote, posted 08-03-2009 1:19 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Coyote, posted 08-03-2009 1:44 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 369 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 2:00 PM traderdrew has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 368 of 438 (517954)
08-03-2009 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by traderdrew
08-03-2009 1:36 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
That suits me just fine. I just haven't found the logic that says you can call ID a religion when ID hasn't informed us of any religious rituals to perform. Once again, advocates of ID can either be Jewish, Muslim, or Christian or even agnostic and even atheists-(guided transpermia).

ID, as it is being pushed in the US, descends straight from fundamentalist religion. Case in point: the Discovery Institute, the chief proponent of ID in the US.

ID starts with the conclusion that there is a designer, but tries to hide the actual identity that virtually all practitioners accept--the Christian deity. They have to hide that to pretend ID is science and to try and sneak back into the schools.

Therefore, religion could be defined as belief without the necessity of any particular rituals or practices.

It could. Here are a couple of definitions that may help:

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.


Note that the theory of evolution does not fall under these definitions.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 1:36 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 3:01 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6686
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 369 of 438 (517957)
08-03-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by traderdrew
08-03-2009 1:36 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
That suits me just fine. I just haven't found the logic that says you can call ID a religion when ID hasn't informed us of any religious rituals to perform. Once again, advocates of ID can either be Jewish, Muslim, or Christian or even agnostic and even atheists-(guided transpermia).

Ok I'll bite. Show me any non-christian advocates of ID.

Here is a definition for you

Religion -
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

It does not have to have devotional or ritual observances. ID does fit this definition. Evolution does not.

The Theory of Evolution says nothing about "the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", therefore it is not a religion. A number of people that you call evolutionists do follow a religion. As a matter of fact a lot of religious people understand that the Theory of Evolution is based upon scientific fact. You can call it a religion all you want, but that doesn't make it a fact. All it does is diminish your argument and shows that you have nothing to contribute to the debate.

guided transpermia)

You have been asked to back this up in the past. Still nothing. Show anything to abck up your assertions.

Message 272

In fact some scientists actually believe in guided transpermia because life and the DNA that helps perpetuate it is so complex. This is in fact intelligent design but it isn't ID backed by theism.

Who are these scientists? You know what you get when you Google "guided transpermia"? Your posts here. Not much else and definitely nothing by any scientists. So please show me an atheist that is a firm believer in guided transpermia. Sounds quite interesting. I would love to see what evidence they might have. I am sure it will be as riveting and scientific as any other ID argument.

I was just want to clarify your positions.

1)ID is science.
Still waiting for some sort of proof on that.

2) ID is not at all linked to creationism
Wedge document and mission statements of leading ID groups evidently mean nothing.

3) Evolution is a religion.
So a lot of christians follow two religions? Or are they not christians if they believe in evolution?

4) The Intelligent Designer you believe in is the god of the christian bible.

Does that some it up?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 1:36 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 2:43 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2384 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 370 of 438 (517962)
08-03-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by traderdrew
08-03-2009 11:10 AM


Re: TTSS, an open question?
Common ancestry is a prediction of ID? In what way is it a prediction? Certainly it may not contradict ID but I fail to see how it necessarily follows from it as it does from an evolutionary theory predicated on diversification through changes in pre-existing organisms/systems.

IDers seem to treat anything permissible under ID, which can be a very broad scope indeed encompassing larger and larger swathes of traditional evolutionary theory, to be 'predictions' of it, even though no ID proponent thought to 'predict' them until they were discovered by mainstream biology researchers.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 11:10 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 2:48 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3444 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 371 of 438 (517963)
08-03-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Theodoric
08-03-2009 2:00 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
Ok I'll bite. Show me any non-christian advocates of ID.

I like to get quotes from some of the favorite sites of evolutionists. I guess I hijack those quotes.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/taner-edis-inte.html

Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp.

I'm sure you can stretch its boundaries as to encompass the causes and purpose of the universe. I'm not sure all religions have done this. What about those less known religions such as Eckankar?

Guided transpermiaYou have been asked to back this up in the past. Still nothing. Show anything to abck up your assertions.

Common sense backs it up. If a highly intelligent alien created the first physical life and directed it to earth, then this is intelligent design. You just need to break free from the beliefs that you want to believe about ID in order to see this.

So please show me an atheist that is a firm believer in guided transpermia.

Francis Crick is an atheist who also codiscovered DNA in 1953.

See page 248 of "Darwin's Black Box" (quoted below)

The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origoin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation.

ID is science.

There is a full chapter about this in "Signature in the Cell". Whether you want to accept it or not is your choice.

ID is not at all linked to creationism
Wedge document and mission statements of leading ID groups evidently mean nothing.

The wedge documents mean nothing to me.

Evolution is a religion.

No,... evolution is not a religion but people can treat is as such. When someone says, "Evolution hasn't explained everything." that means that it falls within pure science.

When someone says something to the effect as the following quote does: "Evolution hasn't explained everthing but, I'm sure that one day the answers will be found and Darwinism will be able to explain it someday." That seems like faith to me.

The Intelligent Designer you believe in is the god of the christian bible.

Is that a question? If you want to know what religion I belong too.....

I'm a Druid. Hence the name trader and drew.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 2:00 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Wounded King, posted 08-03-2009 3:17 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 375 by Percy, posted 08-03-2009 3:49 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 377 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 4:40 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3444 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 372 of 438 (517967)
08-03-2009 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Wounded King
08-03-2009 2:36 PM


Re: TTSS, an open question?
Common ancestry is a prediction of ID? In what way is it a prediction?

If I stated it was a prediction of ID, that came out the wrong way. I think I am on the same page as Michael Behe. We both believe in common descent. As I was reading "The Edge of Evolution" this became obvious to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Wounded King, posted 08-03-2009 2:36 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3444 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 373 of 438 (517968)
08-03-2009 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Coyote
08-03-2009 1:44 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
I just looked it up myself. I think Johnson's dictionary "a particular system of faith and worship" would work depending on how worship is defined.

Worship?

http://www.wcg.org/lit/spiritual/worship/worship1.htm

So worth-ship is the quality of having worth or of being worthy.

Worthy is the science of Darwinism... indeed.

Between you and Theodoric, I think I have made my case.

Bye


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Coyote, posted 08-03-2009 1:44 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2384 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 374 of 438 (517972)
08-03-2009 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by traderdrew
08-03-2009 2:43 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
If a highly intelligent alien created the first physical life and directed it to earth, then this is intelligent design. You just need to break free from the beliefs that you want to believe about ID in order to see this.

I think the problem is that using this scenario virtually everything written by all ID proponents would also need to be discarded. Why should there be any 'edge' to evolution in this scenario, how does it explain the existence of supposedly irreducibly complex systems that surely can't all have been present in the 'first physical life' on Earth. I assume you mean on Earth, otherwise your aliens are presumably non-physical life and that seems to be shading into the supernatural/religious side of things.

I think Behe's take on Crick is slightly disingenuous, it wasn't the 'undirected origin of life' that caused him problems but rather fitting it into the timeframe of the history of life on earth.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 2:43 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 4:18 PM Wounded King has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18877
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 375 of 438 (517978)
08-03-2009 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by traderdrew
08-03-2009 2:43 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
From the "Be careful what you ask for" category:

traderdrew writes:

So please show me an atheist that is a firm believer in guided transpermia.

Francis Crick is an atheist who also codiscovered DNA in 1953.

See page 248 of "Darwin's Black Box" (quoted below)

The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origoin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation.

Nice job, TD!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 2:43 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 4:49 PM Percy has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019