Give your one best shot - against evolution

Over the last week the posts have wandered a little. So here is a nice focussed challenge:What is the single most compelling argument that, for you, shows that the diversity of life today did not evolve from common ancestors?(To keep focussed, I have posted another topic for arguments for special creation, so it would be good if you could avoid arguments of the form "I diagree with evolution because I find creation more persuasuive." What I am looking for here is arguments that directly challenge evolution.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Just as an aside Mr P do we actually need an ultimate single common ancestor? Could abiogenesis not have produced n types of similar original primitive self replicating organisms?

---

I certainly think so. Thus my use of ancestor[b][i]s[/b][/i] in my intial post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Diversity (micro-evolution) is feasible to a great extent until 'fine tuned irreducible' complexities or systems become destroyed (during an hypothetical macro-evolution); at this point the organism or entity must necessarily degrade, devolve, and/or perish.

---

Thanks Philip, this is a really interesting point, though it rather begs some important questions: are there irreducible complexities in nature and are they fine tuned? I am discussing this currently with another in the complementary "one best shot" thread.
Let's take an example of a claimed irreducibly complex system - haemoglobin (the same example as I use in the other topic for consistency.) Would it not be possible for an ancestor of cats and lynxes evolving into both species, taking its irreducibly complex haemoglobin with it?
[b] [QUOTE]'Fine tuned irreducible' complexities and systems take place on stellar levels, atomic levels, organismic levels, and anthropological levels and can never spontaneously generate.
In sum, evolution of fine-tuned irreducible complexities and systems defies any empirical mechanism.[/b][/QUOTE]This is quite a claim in htat it goes beyond inductive logic - for example, one might claim that we have never seen this happen, so one might presume, with varying degrees of caution, that it never happens.
However your categorical statement suggests some deductive reasoning from first principles. Would you tell us what this reasoning is?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
/B]

---

I phoned a friend on this one as I don't have a copy of Behe's book. Indeed you are right, Behe does accept that haemoglobin can be reduced.
I offer two meek excuses and a resolution -
1. I was thinking back to the early days of the debate when this was indeed a subject of discussion. The early Gray/Behe debate in 1994 included a fair bit of discussion of the irreducible complexity or otherwise of haemoglobin. I'm getting old: my memory of distant events is better!
2. You could take a "fundamentalist" reading of my question and note that I do not mention Behe in any of my posts. (I have very little time for him, having sat through an abysmal video of his!) So, to be "inerrant" I need only find one person who holds haemoglobin to be irreducibly complex. Here is someone who seems to think it shows CSI and by implication IC as they claim it supports the design argument: http://the_wordbride.tripod.com/evolution.htmlDoes that get me off the hook? Anyway, my apologies for a bad example. Would you like to suggest another one - say blood clotting?In any case, however, my infelicity does not affect my supplementary question which I will rephrase as follows:Would it not be possible for an ancestor of cats and lynxes evolving into both species, to take an irreducibly complex molecular system with it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
...Behe made it very clear that he thinks haemoglobin is a good example of a system that CAN be explained within the Darwinian framework.
The FIRST formation of hemoglobin per se does fit the definition of a FINE-TUNED IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY or SYSTEM. Referring to your biochemistry text(s), OBSERVE the structure of hemoglobin with the iron atom covalently embedded in an extremely harmonious yet critically complex formation/phenomenon, a formation which cannot be mutated or reduced without degradation and devolvement

---

Well that's interesting! I wonder Philip, if you know why Behe would concede something you regard to be a good example? This isn't my attempt at an argument from authority - I'm just surprised as I would have thought this was a point he would wish to make.I am also surprised at your use of "fine-tuned." Having suffered from quite serious carbon-monoxide poisoning I can tell you from bitter experience that haemoglobin is very far from "fine-tuned" for its purpose in the human bloodstream! Is it not also the case that in some primitive species it appears to be used for removing oxygen and as a transport mechanism for NO? I may be mistaken in the latter case. I am no biochemist and never will be!There do seem to be some flaws in your logic in the latter part of your post ...

quote:

---

For such a structure to ORIGINALLY arise by chance-statistics, artificial or natural selection, or even current experimentation is not feasible, especially without the genetic system(s).

---

The probability of the structure arising cannot be calculated after the fact - we simply have no information which would help us properly define the parameters. In particular, we cannot know whether the environmental or biological parameters were such that the probability of the original structure forming was actually quite high.To say that the structure cannot arise by "artificial or natural selection ... especially without the genetic systems" seems to add a curious qualification, as genetic systems are seen as an essential element of mutation and natural selection."Current experimentation" - I'm not sure at all what you mean by this. If you simply mean that haemoglobin has not been synthesised I do not know if you are correct, but I do not see how it can affect any argument about the evolution of the molecule.Sadly you do not support your assertion that the evolution of the molecule "is not feasible." What are your grounds for asserting it so bravely?

quote:

---

How much more impossible would it be to empirically conceive that the HEMOGLOBIN'S EXTREMELY COMPLEX MULTI-TIERED DNA-RNA-ENZYMATIC GENETIC SYSTEMS(s) found within eukaryotes ever themselves evolved from a precursor.

---

How can one empirically conceive something? If you mean to conceive something based solely on observations, then the only things that are "empirically conceivable" are trivial deductions from observation? Are you a skeptical opponent of induction? More strength to your arm if you are!

quote:

---

Any other systems we might evaluate? The credulity of your faith/biases and my faith/biases are at stake; not science’s/s'.

---

Do you have any? In another post I mention that I am astonished at the limited examples of irreducibly complex systems given by supporters of ID. I would expect many more in a designed lifeform.

quote:

---

Biochemical macro-evolution, whose raw mechanism would be DNA-MUTATION alone (and not genetic variation) must be concluded as illogical within all frameworks of scientific thought.

---

I cannot find anything in your post that leads to a conclusion, never mind this one. I may be missing something - could you show it as a simple syllogism: premises, argument and then your conclusion? Thanks.

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
the fact that humans havent speciated and arent beginning to. only natural selection and choice in breeding have affected the way our different cultures appear.

---

It may be a bit early to say that lack of a divergent species from hom sap is evidence against evolution - wouldn't most expect it to occur over a much greater period than we have existed?I tend to think further human evolution to the point of speciation is unlikely, for a simple reason: the greatest selective pressure leading to speciation appears to be environmental, but human beings are capable of artificially manipulating their environment in ways which reduce that selective pressure. The arctic need not speciate to survive in the cold - they need only develop warmer clothing and other technological adaptations. (Of course they may tend to be plumper - but that is a very minor adaptation.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
That communication channels may be tuned resonantly to diverse and not common sender reciever gulfs. Sorry no explaination today. Mr. sir.

---

Good to hear from you Brad. You've got me worried now, because I think I understood that post You mean that it is unlikely that senders and receivers evolved across species? Will I regret hoping for an explanation in the future?It's an interesting area. Do you know the work of Lynn Margulis on symbiotic evolution? Or recent work done on signal honesty (http://www.biology.ucr.edu/Bio160/lecture6.html)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i think that if we came this far from monkeys that we would have some major differences going around and that were would be the possibility of very select humans even more freaky than bigfoot.

---

One of the most interesting features of humans as a species is our genetic homogeneity. An example often given is that even the most diverse humans are genetically much closer than, for example, two tribes of gorillas in the rainforest.
I do think my point of human technology has something to do with this, but depsite this, we really have been around for a very short period in evolutionary terms.
BTW, I rather like the idea of Bigfoot. Having moved to the Pacific Northwest I have a sneaking ambition to see him, even though in my heart of hearts I don't believe. I spent many days working and fishing on Loch Ness and never did see the monster.
[b] [QUOTE]yes we are very different from other creatures which can lead to the assumption of Creation or ID.[/b][/QUOTE]I know there are many theologians who accept evolution but still reserve an element of direct special creation for the wonder of the human mind. I fully understand the sense of this view to a believer in a personal, directly interacting God - we do seem to be far more evolved than would be strictly necessary for mere survival, don't we?Would any evolutionists care to comment on this? Why do you think human beings have evolved mental powers which seem far in advance of what might be needed for mere survival?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
I am interested in YOUR deductive reasoning; i.e., empirical mechanisms of how even just ONE "FINE-TUNED IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY" (FIC) could possibly have developed from a precursor.

---

It's difficult for me to do this if you don't elaborate on what you mean by "fine-tuned." Probably you should also elaborate on "irreducible complexity" because I find your examples puzzling...I can quite easily imagine space-time with dimensions missing - after all there is considerable debate about the dimensionality of the spacetime. In what way do you consider the universe to be irreducibly complex? In what way is a planet irreducibly complex?You'll need to me enlighten me as to an irreducibly complex system in geology - I know of none, but I am a poor geologist. I'm not sure how fruits and vegetation fit into geology, BTW.All life forms are irreducibly complex? Again, I have to ask in what way?My dreams are certainly not irreducibly complex and I can easily formulate a model of dreaming that is tractably reducible to precursors in my concious mind. But I'm puzzled as to what you mean here.My last computer program absolutely was built from precursors - I'm currently working on version 9!I would dearly like to engage with your assertion that irreducible complexity cannot develop from precursors, but I can find nothing in your post to engage with. You assert it, but you do not explain it. You assert that the systems you mention are irreducibly complex, but you give no detail whatever of how they are so.None of the systems you mention seem irreducibly complex and none of them seem "fine tuned", though I am still ucnlear about what that means.

Jet, that was silly. Why didn't you post a link to the page?Also the content of the post is poor - if the point you are trying to make is that there is debate about the evolutionary process even within mainstream science this can be made by a few well chosen examples and a discussion of their context. You defeat your purpose by quoting from such old sources becaue it suggests that you lack knowledge of current thought or how scientific thought has developed since then.I have no axe to grind with you - I don't know who you are, or what you're background is. I would like to debate with you. Can you summarise your one best shot against evolution briefly and then we can proceed with some closely reasoned argument?Thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
A close examination will reveal that many of the quotes are from leading scientists over the past two decades.

---

61 quotes, only 15 from the last two decades, 5 of them from Michael Denton, an Australian creationist. If we strip out duplicates we find 8 quotes undated, 31 quotes older than 2 decades, 11 quotes in the last 2 decades (actually allowing one which is a quote in the last two decades from James Conant who was a President of Harvard between the World Wars!)Now we could examine how "leading" these scientists are, or how ludicrous is the selective quotation, but lets not. What's the point when faced with ignorance of this magnitutude?

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-13-2002]

quote:

---

Why does this seem to be the most typical response evolutionists use when faced with negative press!

---

For three reasons, in this case. Quoting out of context can distort what someone was saying in such a way as to mislead those who do not know the context of the quotation or the background to the writer's work. Secondly, because several of the quotations are not from "leading" scientists at all: a reader without much background knowledge could be mislead into thinking that Michael Denton, for example, has much the same standing in the scientific community as say Stephen Jay Gould. Thirdly, because quotations which cast doubts on the neo-Darwinian synthesis of genetics and natural selection as the most important elements driving evolution, are set in a context where it may appear that they are casting doubt on evolution per se rather than on a single mechanism.These seem to me to be quite legitimate reasons for such a response.

quote:

---

Try refuting their quotes or their credentials instead of just dismissing them or ignoring them.

---

Sadly I simply haven't the time. I could perhaps do "a refutation a day"? Remember that science does not proceed by refuting quotes but by continuing sustained detailed argument. I would really like to engage you in detailed argument rather than dealing with a blunderbuss of unrelated and uncontextualised quotes.[b] [QUOTE]Neo-Darwinian thought is nothing more than a modern day rehash of centuries old philosophy and pagan religious beliefs. Any honest study of ancient pagan rituals and beliefs will confirm this.[/b][/QUOTE]This is more like it! This would be a great place to start afresh with something substantive. Would you like to give some examples of the ways in which Neo-Darwinism (I'm not a neo-Darwinist, btw) rehashes old philosophy and pagan beliefs. I can then respond to a a detailed argument and we can take it from there?
Possibly you should start a new topic for that. I look forward to engaging with your arguments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Well, I did get a speeding ticket about 12 years ago...

---

Around the time quicksink was born, eh? Is there something we should know?

quote:

---

Would you like to give some examples of the ways in which Neo-Darwinism (I'm not a neo-Darwinist, btw) rehashes old philosophy and pagan beliefs. I can then respond to a a detailed argument and we can take it from there?
Possibly you should start a new topic for that. I look forward to engaging with your arguments.

---

Come on, Jet! Why won't you take part in discussion. So far all you seem to do is cut and paste quotes from others or reply with dismissive one-liners. What's the point of logging on to a forum to do that?Come on, just one little exchange of views, please?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
I am still waiting for your "one quote per day" refutation. You arbitrarily dismissed thousands of quotes from evolutionists that were critical, in one way or another, of Darwinian evolution. I see no logical reason for entering into a discussion with those who would simply dismiss so many comments made by evolution scientists simply on the basis of their disagreement with Darwinian thinking. It is a fruitless endeavor and a waste of time for the both of us.

---

I said I could perhaps manage to refute a quote a day becuase of time pressure and I stressed I was not a neo-Darwininian. Indeed many of the comments critical of neo-Darwinism I would agree with, but I (and many quoted in the site you copied) would still hold fast to a belief in evolution.
What I would like to do, as I made clear, was engage with you on your opinions.
Of course, your opinions may just be the cumulative result of spouting the quotes of others, but lets find out.