|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/30/2008 8:25:31 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Do you define "natural" to mean "unguided by any intelligence whatsoever"? Umm, what other source of "intelligence" would there be if only non-life existed from which life could arise?
I suppose it depends on whether or not you consider a divine creator to be alive. When we speak of abiogenesis as the emergence of life from non-life, the "life" in question is biological life. Biologically speaking, divinity is "non-life", yet it is not without intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/1/2008 12:09:12 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3110
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I suppose it depends on whether or not you consider a divine creator to be alive. You do understand this is a Christian discussion forum! John 14:6
quote:
Biologically speaking, divinity is "non-life", yet it is not without intelligence. Biologically speaking, there is no simple single definition for life that's even widely accepted! How then can biologists "define God" as non-life? I'm sure He's chuckling over this faux-pas, gluadys! Oh sorry, I forgot - that depends on whether you consider a divine creator to be alive.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/1/2008 7:33:09 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I suppose it depends on whether or not you consider a divine creator to be alive. You do understand this is a Christian discussion forum! John 14:6
Oh, certainly. And ordinarily I would not say the creator is not alive. The question is, what kind of life?
Is eternal life biological? Does a Spirit use biological mechanisms to sustain its life?
quote:
quote:
Biologically speaking, divinity is "non-life", yet it is not without intelligence. Biologically speaking, there is no simple single definition for life that's even widely accepted! How then can biologists "define God" as non-life? I'm sure He's chuckling over this faux-pas, gluadys! Oh sorry, I forgot - that depends on whether you consider a divine creator to be alive.
There is fairly wide-spread agreement on the characteristics of biological life. AFAIK, the one outstanding controversy is whether or not to include viruses.
If you include all the following characteristics:
Cellular organisation
Metabolism
DNA/RNA
Reproduction
viruses do not qualify as living.
Note that defining life by these characteristics, God is also not living, as he does not have a body with cellular organization. His life is not sustained by metabolism. He has no genetic information encoded in either DNA or RNA. And he does not reproduce (since He is eternally One). Hence, by biological definition, God is not alive.
So, for the purpose of discussion on abiogenesis, God qualifies as a "non-living" source of intelligence.
< Message edited by gluadys -- 5/2/2008 8:49:42 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/2/2008 4:23:08 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 362
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I didn’t say anything about points.
No, but you did say "Well I am glad you have come around to my understanding here."
The 'point' in question being convincing me of something that I did not believe, and you did.
quote:
However, the main reason I find this piece compelling is because I've seen the claims (at least the montmorillonite thing) substantiated elsewhere. If I saw all of the components coming together to create life, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rather, I think that it is a possible mechanism by which life may have arisen. I believe it to be worth investigation.
It’s never been substantiated anywhere, at least not by any ordinary understanding of the word. And these various scenarios are fairly boilerplate for abiogenesis research; if they show the slightest bit of promise they would have no shortage of money or interested researchers.
"3. to affirm as having substance; give body to; strengthen."
It doesn't meant that there has been enough evidence to move it into the realm of scientific theory, but simply that I've read things that strengthen the case for the montmorillonite RNA thing. Basically, "Montmorillonite is also known to cause micelles (lipid spheres) to assemble together into Vesicles. These are structures that resemble cell membranes on many cells. It can also help nucleotides to assemble into RNA which will end up inside the vesicles and, under the right conditions, will replicate themselves."
That being, that if there were nucleotides available, montmorillonite would be a proper vessel to help them become RNA and secrete a lipid coating for protection.
Also, arguing that "if they show the slightest bit of promise they would have no shortage of money," isn't a good argument from your side, considering that IDer's claim that ID shows promise, yet has a great shortage of money. (Perhaps not you specifically, but some IDers.) ... Unless you're saying that if something naturalistic shows promise, money will be thrown at it. In which case this portion of the comment is void.
quote:
Again, you are talking circles again; if the ‘necessary steps’ are unknown, then we can’t say that one proposed scenario is correct while the other is not.
By 'necessary steps' I mean 'processes which would make the naturalistic formation of life more likely.
No matter which side of the debate you're on, "life 'naturally' pops magically into existence is surely to be assigned a lower probability than, "Nucleotides form in montmorillonite clay. Nucleotides join together to make polynuleotides. Polynucleotides become RNA. RNA evolves to become DNA. DNA accrets a protective lipid membrane."
While we don't know how life formed (or, I'll grant, if.), if we're going to hypothesize about it, instantanous complexity is surely less likely than simple-to-complex chemical reactions.
quote:
But, as I have only a brief formal foray into chemistry, I am required to deffer to those who do have extensive knowledge of chemistry for my answers to chemical problems. They might not be right, but without the wherewithal to nay say them, I must defer to consensus. Otherwise I'm relying on my 'gut instinct' which, for thousands of years, told mankind that everything rotates around the Earth.
Actually, the consensus also said everything revolved around the earth. Best to think for oneself.
And that consensus was largely based off of that 'gut feeling'. It took evidence to make the completely counter-intuitive "Earth not the center of things." idea stick.
quote:
Well ok, then; I accept as a defense that you hate history and lack of knowledge on the subject. Perhaps you should differ to those of us who love history and have spent sometime studying it. 
In my defense, the 'rags to rats' form of SG was (from what I can find) the prevalent form of the theory for the greater majority of the theories existence. It is also the most widely known version of the theory.
Am I correct in assuming that even the latest versions of SG basically said non-complex things jumped straight into a form that fits the basic definitions of life?
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/2/2008 8:51:47 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3110
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Note that defining life by these characteristics, God is also not living, as he does not have a body with cellular organization. His life is not sustained by metabolism. He has no genetic information encoded in either DNA or RNA. And he does not reproduce (since He is eternally One). Hence, by biological definition, God is not alive. Sorry gluadys, but you've not defined "life" at all, rather you've identified several characteristics of living organisms. This is exactly what a naturalist would do to maintain the circular reasoning of her/his religious worldview. The fact is that "life" is not amenable to biological definition since life obviously exists outside limits of natural detection. So, for the purposes of discussion on abiogenesis, God cannot be restricted by naturalistic assumptions and observations!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/2/2008 9:46:50 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Sorry gluadys, but you've not defined "life" at all, rather you've identified several characteristics of living organisms.
Life is defined by the characteristics of life. Do you know of anything that is not defined by its relevant characteristics?
quote:
The fact is that "life" is not amenable to biological definition since life obviously exists outside limits of natural detection.
As you said, there is not a single, simple definition of "life". The biological definition of life is obviously limited to defining what it means to be biologically alive. It does not include a concept of spiritual life. One can be, as Paul describes, biologically alive while at the same time spiritually dead. And clearly, although God has no characteristic of biological life it is ridiculous to say that the source of all life is not living.
However, when one speaks of abiogenesis as "life from non-life" one means from what is not biologically alive. If spiritual life acts on what is not biologically alive to move it into a state of biological life, that qualifies as "life from non-life" as far as biology goes.
quote:
So, for the purposes of discussion on abiogenesis, God cannot be restricted by naturalistic assumptions and observations!
Do you mean "atheistic" assumptions?
Given that you agree that some types of life are outside the limits of natural detection, why would you expect observations of nature to detect them? Nature as detected and observed by the atheist is the same as nature detected and observed by the theist. This says nothing one way or another about God, since God in principle is undetectable by scientific methods of observation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/2/2008 3:16:55 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3110
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Life is defined by the characteristics of life. Then list characteristics of life, NOT living organisms.
quote:
And clearly, although God has no characteristic of biological life it is ridiculous to say that the source of all life is not living. God has no "characteristics of biological organisms", except life, because He is the Source of Life! So since the source of all life is living, then abiogenesis is refuted.
quote:
However, when one speaks of abiogenesis as "life from non-life" one means from what is not biologically alive. If spiritual life acts on what is not biologically alive to move it into a state of biological life, that qualifies as "life from non-life" as far as biology goes. This obviously refers only to naturalists and naturalistic biology. I'm sorry they limit their understanding so arbitrarily, but that's not my problem.
quote:
Do you mean "atheistic" assumptions? Do you know any atheists who are not naturalists? Is belief in the God of the Bible compatible with pure naturalism?
quote:
Nature as detected and observed by the atheist is the same as nature detected and observed by the theist. This says nothing one way or another about God, since God in principle is undetectable by scientific methods of observation. Indeed, this is the whole basis of admitting that abiogenesis is a philosophical issue, not scientific. Thus it is the interpretation of the evidence that we must debate, not the evidence itself.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/25/2008 5:00:06 AM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:drmarkquote:
quote:
Life. That is, if you want to call life a complex informational system.
Oh, most certainly life is! But I was under the impression that spontaneous generation has NEVER been observed.
Get up to date dr. No one believes in “spontaneous generation” any more. Spontaneous generation, the belief that given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise, is no longer accepted. It has been replaced with abiogenesis, the scientific theory that given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise.
I have never heard of abiogenesis being observed either, but should that miniscule detail stop it from being accepted as a cold hard fact?
Nobody accepts abiogenesis as cold hard fact.
Some accept abiogensis as tentatively true, in the same way that some accept that Amelia Earhart and Steve Fossett died in plane crashes.
Nobody thinks abiogensis can be proven with historical evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/25/2008 5:23:38 AM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I believe Jhud would say that one would merely need to demonstrate abiogenesis in the lab (in an unguided Miller-like experiment with reasonable assumptions/ingredients) to falsify ID.
You believe correctly.
Let me put my pedantic hat on and for the sake of argument attempt to defend ID.
If someone does up demonstrating abiogenesis in the lab, this does not exclude the historical action of an intelligent agent.
This is especially true because the guy working in the lab looks very much like an smart fellow (i.e. an intelligent agent).
All lab based success in the field of abiogenesis does is remove irreducible complexity as a basis for intelligent design theory.
ID proponents are free to establish a new basis from which to start from, but I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/25/2008 6:21:45 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7384
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Let me put my pedantic hat on and for the sake of argument attempt to defend ID.
If someone does up demonstrating abiogenesis in the lab, this does not exclude the historical action of an intelligent agent.
This is especially true because the guy working in the lab looks very much like an smart fellow (i.e. an intelligent agent).
All lab based success in the field of abiogenesis does is remove irreducible complexity as a basis for intelligent design theory.
ID proponents are free to establish a new basis from which to start from, but I won't hold my breath.
Well yes, of course, but it does disprove definitively that intelligence is neccesary for the development of living cells, which is the point.
_____________________________
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: IC does not support ID - 5/25/2008 7:13:32 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Let me put my pedantic hat on and for the sake of argument attempt to defend ID.
If someone does up demonstrating abiogenesis in the lab, this does not exclude the historical action of an intelligent agent.
This is especially true because the guy working in the lab looks very much like an smart fellow (i.e. an intelligent agent).
All lab based success in the field of abiogenesis does is remove irreducible complexity as a basis for intelligent design theory.
ID proponents are free to establish a new basis from which to start from, but I won't hold my breath.
Well yes, of course, but it does disprove definitively that intelligence is neccesary for the development of living cells, which is the point.
Now all we need is for ID proponents to spend time in the lab instead of the local school board.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/25/2008 11:33:28 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7384
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Now all we need is for ID proponents to spend time in the lab instead of the local school board.
Your wish is granted.
_____________________________
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: IC does not support ID - 5/25/2008 11:46:25 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Now all we need is for ID proponents to spend time in the lab instead of the local school board.
Your wish is granted.
Except, as far as I can tell, none of the research really has much to do with ID.
If they really wanted to make waves, they would be applying the explanatory filters all over the place, trying to prove that it is a reliable indicator of intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/25/2008 11:48:07 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7384
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Except, as far as I can tell, none of the research really has much to do with ID.
If they really wanted to make waves, they would be applying the explanatory filters all over the place, trying to prove that it is a reliable indicator of intelligence.
Well, no, as we are widely reminded, research first, build up a body of results, then make your case.
_____________________________
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: IC does not support ID - 5/26/2008 9:20:48 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3110
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, no, as we are widely reminded, research first, build up a body of results, then make your case. Just the opposite of ToE, huh!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/26/2008 10:17:45 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 480
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: capellaslight
Uncle Monkey, I think Real Solitude has a good point. The theory of spontaneous generation is a straw man arguement for the real enemy, evolution. I've seen your posts you are sharp witted and learned, please help this newbie defeat the real enemy.
BVZ, I read your link and all I see Miller doing is showing how the flagellum is not a IC. It appears the flagellum can be reduced to a TTSS. Given still the complexity of a TTSS and the flagellum I don't see how this can stilll evolve by mutations , natual selection and random chance.
The flagellum is IC, since the removal of any of the parts makes it stop working. Thats what an IC system IS. What he shows is that it is POSSIBLE that the flagellum has evolved. He does this by providing a possible pathway that is not impossible.
Since it is possible for the flagellum to evolve, and the flagellum is an IC system, it is possible for at least on IC system to evolve. ID breaks down at this point beyond repair.
They just don't realise it despite how simple the argument is. I guess they see only what they want to see.
quote:
Can a TTSS be further reduced?(before being reduced to proteins)
It does not matter. If the removal of any of the parts make it stop working, it is an IC system.
The removal of any of the parts from the flagellum makes it stop working, so it is an IC system.
quote:
What other building blocks could be used for the flagelluum?
Irrelavent. The flagellum is an IC system as it is. What can be made out of its components does not change that. However, the components the flagellum is made out of CAN be used as a possible pathway it might have evolved through.
quote:
According to the article the random chance of assembly for the whole flagellum is 10 E - 1170 , would your chances really improve if the process could be broken down to 2 or 3 parts? (remember you have to improve to 10 E -150 to be called scientifically possable.)
Actually, a single possible pathway shows that it is not impossible. The odds of this particular pathway being the correct one is not the issue.
quote:
As an Engineer I have observed that complex systems only degrade. The systems only change when they are redesigned.
What you have observed does not change the argument. Neither does it address it.
Besides, you have to define the word degrade. I could very easily say that ancient mud (or whatever) degraded into imperfect replicators.
quote:
But the most interesting part of the article was when Miller quoted Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante to try to give an explaination of how the ****ellum did evolve the last part was this:
"The most novel result of our analysis is seeing how, with minimal new material, evolution created the most important pathway of metabolism, achieving the best chemically possible design. In this case, a chemical engineer who was looking for the best design of the process could not have found a better design than the cycle which works in living cells." (Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)
Wow amazing! except one word, evolution didn't create it God did.
I don't see how this addresses my argument.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/26/2008 10:21:56 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 480
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Now all we need is for ID proponents to spend time in the lab instead of the local school board.
Your wish is granted.
What methods are they using that only ID can make possible?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 6/9/2008 4:19:59 AM
|
|
|
capellaslight
Posts: 12
Joined: 4/28/2008
Status: offline
|
BVZ, what I am trying to do is analyze Millers argument and to see if it makes sense. what I understand Miller saying is:
Because a flagellum can be reduced to a less complex IC with a different purpose (the TTSS) its evolution is mathematically possible.
OK rephrased:
Mutations occurs to an already existing and working system (like the TTSS) to become a different system.
This makes no sense because the TTSS is already very complex and the chance of random assembly would still be too high to be mathematically possible. Miller has proven nothing.
Ok let me give an analogy for clearity:
This is like a rabbit who wants to get to the top of a 1000 ft cliff. The rabbit cannot jump 1000 ft so a ledge is spotted at 500 ft. The rabbit cannot still get to the top because he cannot jump 500 ft. Only after small enough jumps are introduced, can the rabbit make it to the top.
Now my earlier questions are relevant. I'm asking if there is sufficient evidence to make the small successive mutations necessary to give natural selection a chance.
Can the components of the TTSS be used for something else to give it a mathematical chance of assembly?
Can the components of the flagellum not related to the TTSS be used in the cell for something else?
(basically I'm asking can the rabbit find smaller steps?)
If the answers are no then, because of mathematical impossibiity, the only way for the flagellum to exist is:
a) God guided the evolutionary process
b) There is no evolutionary process. God made them as they are.
Either way God designed it.
PS Glaudys, sorry about my post. Atheistic evolution is the enemy, not theistic evolution. I do not want to alienate another believer based on a minor disagreement.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 6/9/2008 7:56:40 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: capellaslight
PS Glaudys, sorry about my post. Atheistic evolution is the enemy, not theistic evolution. I do not want to alienate another believer based on a minor disagreement.
No, atheistic evolution is not the enemy. Atheism is the enemy.
There is no difference between the evolution accepted by atheists and the evolution accepted by theists. The theory of evolution is the same no matter what one's religious viewpoint. There are not two different theories of evolution.
That is why it is an error to lambaste evolution when what you really want to lambaste is atheism.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 6/9/2008 9:32:56 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: capellaslight
BVZ, what I am trying to do is analyze Millers argument and to see if it makes sense. what I understand Miller saying is:
Because a flagellum can be reduced to a less complex IC with a different purpose (the TTSS) its evolution is mathematically possible.
OK rephrased:
Mutations occurs to an already existing and working system (like the TTSS) to become a different system.
This makes no sense because the TTSS is already very complex and the chance of random assembly would still be too high to be mathematically possible. Miller has proven nothing.
Ok let me give an analogy for clearity:
This is like a rabbit who wants to get to the top of a 1000 ft cliff. The rabbit cannot jump 1000 ft so a ledge is spotted at 500 ft. The rabbit cannot still get to the top because he cannot jump 500 ft. Only after small enough jumps are introduced, can the rabbit make it to the top.
Now my earlier questions are relevant. I'm asking if there is sufficient evidence to make the small successive mutations necessary to give natural selection a chance.
Can the components of the TTSS be used for something else to give it a mathematical chance of assembly?
Can the components of the flagellum not related to the TTSS be used in the cell for something else?
(basically I'm asking can the rabbit find smaller steps?)
If the answers are no then, because of mathematical impossibiity, the only way for the flagellum to exist is:
a) God guided the evolutionary process
b) There is no evolutionary process. God made them as they are.
Either way God designed it.
PS Glaudys, sorry about my post. Atheistic evolution is the enemy, not theistic evolution. I do not want to alienate another believer based on a minor disagreement.
The real question is do we have sufficient knowledge of the natural processes and components to jump to the conclusion it is impossible to occur through natural means. The answer is big resounding "no". If you want to break things down even farther, we still don't know how self-replicating organic molecules formed to begin with. That is not evidence for ID.
We also know that traits can be removed through evolution. Evolution can 'design' irreducibly complex systems.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 6/9/2008 3:05:50 PM
|
|
|
capellaslight
Posts: 12
Joined: 4/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The real question is do we have sufficient knowledge of the natural processes and components to jump to the conclusion it is impossible to occur through natural means. The answer is big resounding "no". If you want to break things down even farther, we still don't know how self-replicating organic molecules formed to begin with. That is not evidence for ID.
We also know that traits can be removed through evolution. Evolution can 'design' irreducibly complex systems.
Good link - it sums up what we knew about evolution, it must use small random mutations to stumble upon something of use, so natural selection can breed the new quality.
The only problem is for each mutation to stick it needs to be an advantage to the organism. BVZ asserts that the evolution of a flagellum is possible. Mathematically I don't see how this is possible. Please show me the necessary steps with their mathematical probability and thier purpose. This will prove to me that evolution as you say can 'design' something complex. Thanks.
< Message edited by capellaslight -- 6/10/2008 4:18:44 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 6/9/2008 3:18:15 PM
|
|
|
capellaslight
Posts: 12
Joined: 4/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
No, atheistic evolution is not the enemy. Atheism is the enemy.
There is no difference between the evolution accepted by atheists and the evolution accepted by theists. The theory of evolution is the same no matter what one's religious viewpoint. There are not two different theories of evolution.
That is why it is an error to lambaste evolution when what you really want to lambaste is atheism.
Interesting. I am under the impression that theistic evolution is evolution guided by the hand of God. Atheistic evolution is evolution that happened by random chance. Did I miss something? Do you see them differently? If so how?
Please just I'm tiring to get to know your view point better.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 6/9/2008 3:22:31 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7384
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
The real question is do we have sufficient knowledge of the natural processes and components to jump to the conclusion it is impossible to occur through natural means. The answer is big resounding "no". If you want to break things down even farther, we still don't know how self-replicating organic molecules formed to begin with. That is not evidence for ID.
So, let me get this straight:
We don’t know any natural means by which irreducibly complex structures can be developed, therefore we should not consider ID.
We don’t know how self-replicating organic molecules formed, so we should not consider ID.
Assuming we will never actually know how such things occurred (only how they might have occurred) at which point will we have sufficient information to consider alternatives to naturalism?
And how will we measure what we ‘don’t know’?
_____________________________
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: IC does not support ID - 6/9/2008 3:23:49 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: capellaslight
quote:
The real question is do we have sufficient knowledge of the natural processes and components to jump to the conclusion it is impossible to occur through natural means. The answer is big resounding "no". If you want to break things down even farther, we still don't know how self-replicating organic molecules formed to begin with. That is not evidence for ID.
We also know that traits can be removed through evolution. Evolution can 'design' irreducibly complex systems.
Good link - it sums up what we knew evolution, it must use small random mutations to stumble upon something of use, so natural selection can breed the new quality.
The only problem is for each mutation to stick it needs to be an advantage to the organism. BVZ asserts that the evolution of a flagellum is possible. Mathematically I don't see how this is possible. Please show me the necessary steps with their mathematical probability and thier purpose. This will prove to me that evolution as you say can 'design' something complex. Thanks.
If we must..... google has the info as well.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 6/9/2008 3:39:01 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Mathematically I don't see how this is possible. Please show me the necessary steps with their mathematical probability and thier purpose.
capellaslight: The mathematical probability and purpose for the intermediate steps toward flagellum will appear to you to be incredibly unlikely as to be impossible. What I cannot show you are the infinite number of steps and structures that bacteria did _not_ happen to develop.
Everyone else: a response of mathematical probability will not help this discussion because capellaslight is prepared to counter with Hindsight Bias and Historian's Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian's_fallacy
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
