|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Here ya go. - 8/22/2007 6:53:35 PM
|
|
|
Bouncer
Posts: 93
Joined: 7/27/2007
From: Georgia.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
The original IC definition by Behe was if even ONE part of an IC system, in this case the flagellum, was removed it would "cause the whole system to cease functioning." After Miller demonstrated this was not true, Behe and ID redefined IC to say well yes the system can lose as many as THIRTY parts and continue to function. So now Behe and ID's position has changed from Irreducible to Reducible but still complex. Where no one part could be removed before now 30 or more can be and the system is still considered by ID to be Irreducibly Complex. It's an oxymoron.
If that is what the quote said, you might have a point, but as that is not at all what the quote said, and as Miller, the evolutionist in question here never made that claim, I have no idea where you got the idea that, " the system can lose as many as THIRTY parts and continue to function."
So to be clear, no evolutionary biologist has ever claimed this, Behe never claimed this, and if that is what you got out of the quote, you are obviously not reading it.
the pump is made of ten proteins that are also found in the forty-protein motor that Professor Behe has made so famous. forty minus ten is thirty. BTW: Why do you think Miller was wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Here ya go. - 8/22/2007 6:58:13 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7395
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
the pump is made of ten proteins that are also found in the forty-protein motor that Professor Behe has made so famous. forty minus ten is thirty. BTW: Why do you think Miller was wrong?
Seriously, you have been studying it this long and you still can't get it?
It's not 40 minus 10. It is that 10 of the proteins, of the 40 found in the flagellum, are not unique to the flagellum. The proteins are utilized elsewhere in the cell in other ways. You can't 'remove' them from the flagellum and have it still work.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Here ya go. - 8/22/2007 7:00:14 PM
|
|
|
Bouncer
Posts: 93
Joined: 7/27/2007
From: Georgia.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
the pump is made of ten proteins that are also found in the forty-protein motor that Professor Behe has made so famous. forty minus ten is thirty. BTW: Why do you think Miller was wrong?
Seriously, you have been studying it this long and you still can't get it?
It's not 40 minus 10. It is that 10 of the proteins, of the 40 found in the flagellum, are not unique to the flagellum. The proteins are utilized elsewhere in the cell in other ways. You can't 'remove' them from the flagellum and have it still work.
You don't remove the 10 you remove the thirty.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Here ya go. - 8/22/2007 7:02:28 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7395
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
You don't remove the 10 you remove the thirty.
No. Geez, no one is saying you can 'remove' any.
They are talking about the fact that certain proteins found in the flagellum are used in other capacities in the cell. Miller is talking about co-option. Get it right.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Here ya go. - 8/22/2007 7:52:27 PM
|
|
|
Bouncer
Posts: 93
Joined: 7/27/2007
From: Georgia.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
You don't remove the 10 you remove the thirty.
No. Geez, no one is saying you can 'remove' any.
They are talking about the fact that certain proteins found in the flagellum are used in other capacities in the cell. Miller is talking about co-option. Get it right.
Oh I got it.
Let's see you have this flagellum that is made up of 40 parts. A flagellum that ID originally said could not function with the removal of even one part. Now as Miller and others have pointed out that is not the case. If you take the flagellum and remove 30 parts leaving only the 10 parts that 'are used in other capacities in the cell' you have a system that still functions.
Miller may be talking about co-option but I am talking about a reducible irreducibly complex system.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/22/2007 8:09:36 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1107
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
This has been scientifically validated? May I ask what scientific journal this has been submitted to so I can read these findings? Thanks.
Sure
I wonder what the reference to mutational studies is about regarding ribosomes.
quote:
quote:
Science isn't looking for the best explanation.
This may be the stupidest comment I have seen in some time on Crosswalk. Of course it is. Ultimately science seeks the only explanation. Inference of the best explanation is only one step.
quote:
quote:
That organisms had the material to establish more environmentally advantageous structures.
You are going to have to do better than that; how did an element, calcium allow organisms "to establish more environmentally advantageous structures"? It's called evolution.
quote:
Actually, the evolutionists never said that "junk DNA" was all junk. They didn't know to what degree.
(Quoted from Gene exchange no 2, 1996)
In another reminder that we may not understand the full ramifications of genetic engineering, Science magazine recently reported new work on the function of genetic material*. Scientists have long been puzzled by the fact that fully 97% of the DNA in human cells does not code for proteins and appears to consist of meaningless sequences. The possibility that this apparently useless DNA has some as yet unknown function continues to tantalize scientists. "
http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/23/2007 12:36:33 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7395
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Let's see you have this flagellum that is made up of 40 parts. A flagellum that ID originally said could not function with the removal of even one part. Now as Miller and others have pointed out that is not the case. If you take the flagellum and remove 30 parts leaving only the 10 parts that 'are used in other capacities in the cell' you have a system that still functions.
Not quite. Within the flagellum there is an ion pump composed of the ten proteins. The flagellum doesn't function without the pump or the proteins; however the pump is utilized in other ways in other systems in the cell.
Think of it this way. Imagine an electric motor. The same motor might be used to run the gears on a clock, or turn the propeller of a toy plane. Miller is suggesting because this component can be 'co-opted' for other uses, that any particular structure can be built up of parts that originally existed elsewhere. Of course such an idea ignores the other differences between a clock and a toy plane, just as he ignores the different uses of the pump in other systems in the cell. But the flagellum still requires the pump to function.
quote:
Miller may be talking about co-option but I am talking about a reducible irreducibly complex system.
Well, as I explained above Miller's point doesn't change the irreducibile nature of the flagellum. it still requires all the parts to function.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/23/2007 12:57:30 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1107
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, as I explained above Miller's point doesn't change the irreducibile nature of the flagellum. it still requires all the parts to function.
If I may comment here.
I need further explanation Jhud. This appears to contradict you regarding flagellum.
“If you take away all but 10 of the 50 or so parts of the bacterial flagellum, what remains, according to intelligent design, should be non-functional. Instead, we find that what is left behind makes up a Type III secretory system that is perfectly functional. The Type III secretory system is a very nasty [apparatus] that hooks to [a host’s] cells until those cells burst and are devoured by a bacteria."
http://www3.lehigh.edu/News/news_story.asp?iNewsID=1352
Also a question:
If the bacterial flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then wouldn't the flagella of all bacteria be identical to each other?
< Message edited by Aristocrat -- 8/23/2007 1:03:47 PM >
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/23/2007 1:22:36 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7395
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I need further explanation Jhud. This appears to contradict you regarding flagellum.
“If you take away all but 10 of the 50 or so parts of the bacterial flagellum, what remains, according to intelligent design, should be non-functional. Instead, we find that what is left behind makes up a Type III secretory system that is perfectly functional. The Type III secretory system is a very nasty [apparatus] that hooks to [a host’s] cells until those cells burst and are devoured by a bacteria."
http://www3.lehigh.edu/News/news_story.asp?iNewsID=1352
Not contradictory at all. You take away the parts (any of them) and it no longer functions as a flagellum. The flagellum ceases to function. It is irreducibly complex.
Within the flagellum there is a secretory system (the 'pump' spoken of earlier) that can be utlized by the cell in other capacities. That pump is made up of 10 proteins also found in the pump that forms part of flagellum. And to be clear, no one has ever actually reduced a flagellum down to a working pump, but because the pumps are simliar (they have homologous proteins) Miller is speculating that the flagellum 'co-opted' the pump. But that explanation doesn't explain the occurence of the remaining 30 proteins which are unique to the flagellum, nor diminish the fact that respective to the flagellum the system is irreducibly complex, just as Behe said.
quote:
If the bacterial flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then wouldn't the flagella of all bacteria be identical to each other?
No you can build an apparatus that accomplishes the same purpose in different ways (different sorts of motors for example) that are irreducibly complex respective to the apparatus itself.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/27/2007 8:20:40 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Evolution postulates that there is no such thing as IC and if there was, evidence would be necessary to form a hypothesis to challenge Evolution. There is none.
Where does evolution postulate that there is no such thing as IC? Is this located somewhere in Darwins book The origin of species? If so, I would like to see the reference.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Evolution is founded on evidence in all the hard sciences.
Please substantiate.
Gladly. All sciences support the Theory of Evolution and therefore reject Creationism and it's artificially contrived front group, I.D.
Evidence? First of all, truth is not based on unanimous consensus. Secondly, how do you know all scientists support ToE. Michael Behe is a scientist and he believes ID to be true (that's not to say he supports or opposes ToE). I'm sure I can find scientists who oppose ToE (you may not wish to label them scientists because they disagree with you, but just because they disagree with you doesn't mean they're not scientists). For example, the scientists at AIG don't support universal evolution. So not all scientists support evolution.
quote:
"Over 70 scientific societies, institutions and other professional groups have issued statements supporting evolution education and opposing intelligent design.
...
These organizations represent millions of scientists who must meet the standards of scientific rigor. And all they require is that any critical opposition to Evolution meet the same standards. I.D. cannot meet that standard.
Read more about this here:
I didn't ask for the opinions of those who agree with you, I asked for evidence.
Have you ever taken a philosophy class? In a philosophy class (ie: a philosophy and ethics class) they expose the positive and negative arguments of each philosopher and of each aspect of their philosophy. For example, they would show people arguments from proponents and opponents of Kantism, rule utility, act utility, hedonism, social contract theory, etc... and after showing these philosophies, they would allow the student to decide which one is best. That is to say, in such fields scrutiny is welcome and they allow students to reason through both sides of all arguments to arrive at conclusions. This is true of most other subjects that secular schools teach (but not all. IE: they may censor the views of those who oppose global warming from students. While I may or may not agree with the notion that humans are destroying the environment with greenhouse gases, I think it's wrong for them to expose students to arguments for global warming and censor arguments against). The problem with evolution; however, is that it's too unsupported by evidence to allow for such scrutiny and to allow students exposure to opposing sides. Such discussions and reasoning can only be helpful to science (since science welcomes scrutiny and opposing views) and if evolution is really that supported by evidence, there is no reason to censor opposing views because students will have no problems (after seeing the strongest non - strawman arguments of both sides of the issue) reasoning that evolution is true (only now they would have a better understanding of opposing views as well and hence they will understand evolution better because they would better understand how evolution handles these opposing views). Naturalists don't want people loosing faith in their unsupported naturalistic religion and they can't get sufficient funding via volunteers / donations (because their naturalistic religion is too unsupported by evidence and will fall apart without tax dollars) so they insist on brainwashing students with their naturalistic philosophies (like universal evolution) at the expense of tax payers while censoring all opposing views. It's not my fault naturalistic philosophies (like universal evolution) are too unscientific to receive sufficient private fundings because not enough people are willing fund such an unsupported naturalistic religion. That's no reason for naturalists to steal arbitrary sums of tax dollars from tax payers and use it to brainwash students with their religion. If those people you listed / referred to want to fund their unsupported naturalistic religion, let them fund it out of their own pockets (like how proponents of ID fund their beliefs), instead of stealing tax dollars to fund it. Until evolution can survive on a level playing field with opposing views (instead of needing tax dollars for survival while censoring all other views), I see no reason to believe evolution to be true (or any other naturalistic philosophies for that matter). Science welcomes scrutiny and evolution is anti - science because it is afraid of scrutiny.
quote:
What interests me as a marketing observer is this; after tens of thousands of exposures to the Darwin marketing "message" only some 34% of people buy the message. And with almost NO exposures to the contrary message except in Sunday school and mom and dad, 66% of people believe we were created by a designer. Personally, I believe the main reason this is the case is the ease with which people look at the world and readily conclude it looks designed. The arguments to the contrary just are really hard to follow.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/pat_sullivan_and_marketing_dar.html
The problem with universal evolution (and other naturalistic philosophies) is that it is so unsupported by evidence that without tax dollars and the censorship of opposing views it would fall apart completely.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 8/27/2007 8:33:24 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/27/2007 9:34:08 AM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1107
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Betta, I'm just going to answer your post with an article and a quote in the introduction.
quote:
Most biologists have concluded that the proponents of intelligent design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science. ~
This excellent article speaks for itself but I challenge you to find excerpts from this article and challenge me on them. My guess is you cannot or won't. But, I welcome any critique you have of this article.
As far as the rest of your post goes. I wouldn't mind if Creationism/I.D. was taught in a Philosophy class. But, ID should remain out of the science classes until at least one piece of hard evidence of a creator can be put on the table to examine and be tested.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/27/2007 9:50:44 AM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1107
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Not contradictory at all. You take away the parts (any of them) and it no longer functions as a flagellum. The flagellum ceases to function. It is irreducibly complex. Let's take this a step further.
Question: Synechococcus (a cyanobacterium) swims without flagellum. It appears to me that it would be okay if flagellum ceased to function if this system was equally as successful. Do you think that any organisms functioned like Synechococcus before it evolved flagellum? Why or why not?
http://www.rowland.harvard.edu/labs/bacteria/projects_noflagella.html
quote:
quote:
If the bacterial flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then wouldn't the flagella of all bacteria be identical to each other?
No you can build an apparatus that accomplishes the same purpose in different ways (different sorts of motors for example) that are irreducibly complex respective to the apparatus itself.
Why would you build different models to do the exact same thing? Doesn't it seem to you that the difference would be in how each organism evolved?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/27/2007 10:32:43 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Betta, I'm just going to answer your post with an article and a quote in the introduction.
quote:
Most biologists have concluded that the proponents of intelligent design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science. ~
The fact that most naturalists attempt to appeal to the consensus (and not the evidence) suggests that universal evolution is not supported by evidence. There were many times in history where the consensus was wrong. I asked for evidence and so far you have provided none.
quote:
As far as the rest of your post goes. I wouldn't mind if Creationism/I.D. was taught in a Philosophy class.
However, they should require anyone that is required to take classes on universal evolution to also take these classes on opposing views and they should teach the strongest non - strawman views of opponents of evolution and proponents of opposing views. Whether or not they want to label it science is arbitrary, as long as students who are exposed to universal evolution are also exposed to the strongest non - strawman opposing views.
quote:
But, ID should remain out of the science classes until at least one piece of hard evidence of a creator can be put on the table to examine and be tested.
ID is no less scientific than universal evolution. Universal evolution is unfalsifiable. ID can be falsified. Simply show that IC and SC structures can emerge independently of already existent IC and SC structures. Show that life can emerge independently of already existent IC and SC structures. Show that nature can produce life through unguided processes. That would falsify one aspect of ID (that nature will not produce such structures unguided). The falsification scheme for ID is very simple, the falsification scheme for universal evolution is an ambiguous chain of complicated nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/27/2007 10:49:18 AM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1107
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
The fact that most naturalists attempt to appeal to the consensus (and not the evidence) suggests that universal evolution is not supported by evidence. There were many times in history where the consensus was wrong. I asked for evidence and so far you have provided none. What evidence are you seeking exactly? All hard sciences are structured around the evidence that you say doesn't exist. How can anyone but God Himself overcome that type of ignorance?
quote:
as long as students who are exposed to universal evolution are also exposed to the strongest non - strawman opposing views. You mean religion. the biggest strawman concept in the history of mankind.
quote:
quote:
But, ID should remain out of the science classes until at least one piece of hard evidence of a creator can be put on the table to examine and be tested.
ID is no less scientific than universal evolution. Universal evolution is unfalsifiable.
See? You just can't get around that "evidence" thing, can ya." 
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/27/2007 10:54:07 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
What evidence are you seeking exactly?
Any evidence.
quote:
All hard sciences are structured around the evidence that you say doesn't exist.
You have yet to provide any evidence. I'm still waiting. I asked for evidence, please provide some. I didn't ask for the opinions of those who agree with you, I asked for evidence. Still waiting.
quote:
You mean religion. the biggest strawman concept in the history of mankind.
Whether or not you wish to label it a religion is arbitrary, even if something is a "religion" that makes it no less scientific.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/27/2007 11:36:43 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7395
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Question: Synechococcus (a cyanobacterium) swims without flagellum. It appears to me that it would be okay if flagellum ceased to function if this system was equally as successful. Do you think that any organisms functioned like Synechococcus before it evolved flagellum? Why or why not?
http://www.rowland.harvard.edu/labs/bacteria/projects_noflagella.html
Some bacteria have flagellum, some don't - the flagella are irreducibly complex respective to their function as a flagella. Think of a boat - one could use a motor or row the boat, and depending on the circumstance either could be preferable - but that doesn't mean an outboard motor could 'evolve'.
quote:
Why would you build different models to do the exact same thing? Doesn't it seem to you that the difference would be in how each organism evolved?
I am guessing they don't do 'the exact same thing'. Different environments require different forms of mobility, and at micro-levels motility is a factor. Presumably the flagella differ as much as they are required for their respective environments.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/27/2007 12:02:03 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1107
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
What evidence are you seeking exactly?
Any evidence.
I mean what "type" of evidence?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/29/2007 3:24:59 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
What evidence are you seeking exactly?
Any evidence.
I mean what "type" of evidence?
Any type of evidence, I don't care. Please provide some. Universal evolution claims all living organisms share a common ancestor. Please provide evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/29/2007 4:04:10 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1107
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
What evidence are you seeking exactly?
Any evidence.
I mean what "type" of evidence?
Any type of evidence, I don't care. Please provide some. Universal evolution claims all living organisms share a common ancestor. Please provide evidence.
The fact that our DNA is shared over 95% with chimps is a start. DNA can only continue through replication and when so much is shared with another species, it is safe to say we both (chimps and humans) inhereted those sames genes from a common ancestor.
I'll bet if you asked, you would find that even Jhud believes in common descent to a degree. Would that surprise you?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intelligent Design - 8/29/2007 4:15:15 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1458
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
The fact that our DNA is shared over 95% with chimps is a start. DNA can only continue through replication and when so much is shared with another species, it is safe to say we both (chimps and humans) inhereted those sames genes from a common ancestor.
The only thing this demonstrates is that DNA controls phenotype. If DNA controls phenotype, we would expect that organisms that are similar in phenotype would likewise be similar in DNA and organisms that are different in morphology would have corresponding differences in DNA (and the most similar organisms morphologically would also be the most similar genetically). This does not tell us the relationships of these organisms (it simply tells us that DNA controls phenotype/morphology). Claiming they share a common ancestor is speculative. The similarities we share with chimps is just a matter of degree. How different must our DNA be from those of chimps to conclude that we don't share a common ancestor and why that different?
quote:
I'll bet if you asked, you would find that even Jhud believes in common descent to a degree. Would that surprise you?
Even if this is true, so what? What's your point? Different people believe different things.
Besides, I believe in common descent to a degree too. I believe all humans share a common ancestor (Adam and Eve. Ok, perhaps two common ancestors).
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
