Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Dos Equis on August 19, 2006, 10:56:05 PM
-
I just finished Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." Sort of. He gave both layman and scientific explanations of various topics and gave the reader permission to skip the detailed and footnoted scientific information if you don't have a science background. So . . . . I stuck with the "easy" to understand stuff.
Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. He's not a Christian. Or at least he wasn't when he wrote the book.
The two main things I took away from this book are:
1. There are a lot of scientists who have problems with Darwin's theory of evolution. I was surprised, because many people attempt to portray anyone who believes in intelligent design, or simply don't believe in Darwin's theory, to be religious nuts with no science background. That's simply not true. Among the people who have concerns about and/or have questioned Darwinism are English biologists Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, University of Georgia geneticist John McDonald, Australian evolutionary geneticist George Miklos, Jerry Coyne of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, University of California geneticist John Endler, and many others.
2. Evolutionists cannot scientifically explain the supposed gradual evolution of the plethora of irreducibly complex systems in the human body. An irreducibly complex system is "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." I like his mouse trap example, which helped me understand this. A mouse trap is irreducibly complex, because you must have all the parts working at the same time: platform, holding bar, catch, spring, and hammer. If any one part is missing, the trap doesn't work.
He argues that there are a number of irreducibly complex biological systems in our bodies, including the eye, cilium, "bacterial flagellum," and blood clotting, to name a few. Because all of the parts of these systems are dependent on each other, they could not have evolved, step by step. Makes sense to me.
He's critical of much of the scientific community for failing to spend enough time studying and explaining how Darwinism can account for irreducibly complex systems.
His conclusion is that irreducibly complex systems essentially have to be designed. They cannot evolve by some gradual process or an accident. He doesn't advocate the God theory or creationism, but says someone had to design these irreducibly complex systems. I agree.
I think this book should be required reading in sciences classes, regardless of whether the class focuses on Darwinism or intelligent design.
-
The argument from irreducible complexity is basically a rehash of the watchmaker argument. Michael Behe argues that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced by evolution. However, there are several problems with his assertion.
How do we decide when to apply irreducible complexity? Organisms don't come with parts, functions, or systems labeled. These are terms we use for convenience. For example, the legs might be called a walking system. But what are the parts? If we divide a leg into 3 major parts, then removal of any part results in loss of function. Thus legs are irreducibly complex. On the other hand, if we count each bone as a part instead of several parts, then a whole toe may be removed and we still have a functional walking system.
Another problem is Behe's misunderstanding of evolutionary processes. There are 4 possible ways for "irreducible complexity" to evolve.
- previously using more parts than necessary for the function
- the parts themselves evolve
- deployment of parts evolves
- new parts are created and may then evolve
In the past, a function may have been done with more parts than necessary. The "extra" part(s) may have been lost over time leaving an irreducibly complex system, or the parts may have co-adapted to perform even better at the expense of not being able to function without each other. The parts themselves may have evolved. Another important fact is that DNA evolves. Each protein that your body makes is coded in your DNA and is subject to mutation and evolution. This is referred to this as deployment of parts. When a protein is deployed out of its usual context, it may be co-opted for a different function. Lastly, brand new parts may have been created and evolved.
Behe also commits a logical fallacy by using "gap theology" to support intelligent design. He attempts to justify a particular view by discrediting another while offering no support for his own. This is akin to saying a person is guilty b/c he cannot be proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt although no shred of evidence implicates him in the crime. In Behe's case, he says "God must have done it."
-
1. There are a lot of scientists who have problems with Darwin's theory of evolution. I was surprised, because many people attempt to portray anyone who believes in intelligent design, or simply don't believe in Darwin's theory, to be religious nuts with no science background. That's simply not true. Among the people who have concerns about and/or have questioned Darwinism are English biologists Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, University of Georgia geneticist John McDonald, Australian evolutionary geneticist George Miklos, Jerry Coyne of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, University of California geneticist John Endler, and many others.
Mcdonald doesn't doubt Evolution.
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
George Miklos is an apologetic Christian.
Jerry Coyne supports evolution 100% and is highly critical of Intelligent Design.
http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20050822&s=coyne082205
John Endler also supports evolution 100% and is against intelligent design.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVB1bInthelab.shtml
http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/eemb/faculty/endler/
Wow! Very convincing!
If you want to play "Scientists who support evolution" then I'd win.
I can name over 100 prominent scientists who support evolution...
...All named Steve!
2. Evolutionists cannot scientifically explain the supposed gradual evolution of the plethora of irreducibly complex systems in the human body. An irreducibly complex system is "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." I like his mouse trap example, which helped me understand this. A mouse trap is irreducibly complex, because you must have all the parts working at the same time: platform, holding bar, catch, spring, and hammer. If any one part is missing, the trap doesn't work.
The human body isn't Irreducibly complex. By your own definition if we remove for instance my leg then since i'm irreducibly complex, I shouldn't be able to even function? That's utter nonsense. The fact is most of my bodyparts can be removed and I could still survive and function. Biologists can explain the gradual evolution of just about any organ of the human body.(Including the eye).
He argues that there are a number of irreducibly complex biological systems in our bodies, including the eye, cilium, "bacterial flagellum," and blood clotting, to name a few. Because all of the parts of these systems are dependent on each other, they could not have evolved, step by step. Makes sense to me.
Let's use the Eye for an example. If the human eye were indeed "irreducibly complex" then any changes in it's function or any removal of anything within it would render it 100% useless. This isn't the case obviously. Many people have myopia(near-sightedness) where they must wear glasses. Many others have other eye disorders where their eyes are missing parts or have changed parts. They however can still see.
He's critical of much of the scientific community for failing to spend enough time studying and explaining how Darwinism can account for irreducibly complex systems.
Darwin explained the evolution of the eye over 120 years ago.
His conclusion is that irreducibly complex systems essentially have to be designed. They cannot evolve by some gradual process or an accident. He doesn't advocate the God theory or creationism, but says someone had to design these irreducibly complex systems. I agree.
2 points.
- There are no irreducibly complex systems in the human body.
- Even if there was a system in which if it was changed it could no longer serve it's purpose, It could easily serve another purpose. An example exists in birds. Birds feathers serve the purpose of flight. However before they evolved for flight the feathers evolved for the purpose of keeping them warm. In this case a seemingly irreducibly complex system easily serves a purpose when it isn't the same as it is now.
I think this book should be required reading in sciences classes, regardless of whether the class focuses on Darwinism or intelligent design.
His book is "pseudo science" and can easily be refuted as I have demonstrated. No such book belongs in any science class.
-
Dude your opinion is worth about as much as mine: nothing. You're obvioulsy not a scientist, I doubt you have a science background, and I doubt you work in any kind of science field. I'll take Behe's research over your internet links any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
The one thing I'll say in response to you and your alter ego double posts is that Behe didn't say the human body is irreducibly complex. He said certain systems within the body at the cellular level are irreducibly complex. Those are the facts.
I've already left the book at my office, but I'll post some of the comments from the people I identified later (maybe tomorrow if I have time).
-
Dude your opinion is worth about as much as mine: nothing.
It's not opinion when I provide proof.
You're obvioulsy not a scientist, I doubt you have a science background, and I doubt you work in any kind of science field. I'll take Behe's research over your internet links any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Ad hominem fallacy.
My background is irrelevant. You're attacking me because you can't attack my argument.
The one thing I'll say in response to you and your alter ego double posts is that Behe didn't say the human body is irreducibly complex. He said certain systems within the body at the cellular level are irreducibly complex. Those are the facts.
None of the organs you listed are irreducibly complex. Including the eye as I explained.
I've already left the book at my office, but I'll post some of the comments from the people I identified later (maybe tomorrow if I have time).
I don't respond to quote mining.
The websites I posted are the PERSONAL WEBSITES of the people you named. Proof they support evolution. Not that it matters in the first place.
-
Don't forget to respond NeoSeminole.
-
Dude your opinion is worth about as much as mine: nothing. You're obvioulsy not a scientist, I doubt you have a science background, and I doubt you work in any kind of science field. I'll take Behe's research over your internet links any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Riiiiight. So if you say the earth is flat, then I guess your opinion is as valid as mine b/c I'm not an astronomer? ::)
The one thing I'll say in response to you and your alter ego double posts is that Behe didn't say the human body is irreducibly complex. He said certain systems within the body at the cellular level are irreducibly complex. Those are the facts.
How do you decide when to use the term irreducible complexity? I already showed you how a leg can be considered both IC and non-IC. Let's just say for argument's sake that certain systems within the body are irreducibly complex. There are several ways they may have evolved. Behe's argument that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced by evolution stems for a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process.
I've already left the book at my office, but I'll post some of the comments from the people I identified later (maybe tomorrow if I have time).
I look forward to it.
-
Wow what timing. couldn't have timed it better myself....unless Neo is Johnny also which was already suggested, or Bast.
Johnny, you need to get a life.
-
Tyrone's background is highly relevent. Behe is a scientist. Why should I give any credence whatsoever to someone with an unknown background who likely hasn't even read Darwin's Black Box?
So what's your background "Tyrone"?
-
Tyrone's background is highly relevent. Behe is a scientist. Why should I give any credence whatsoever to someone with an unknown background who likely hasn't even read Darwin's Black Box?
So what's your background "Tyrone"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem
Also from your favorite web site:
"Credibility is the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the ability of the observer to believe that statement."
If you're not a scientist, have no science background, and do not work in a science-related field then you have ZERO credibility. I think that makes you a pseudo-scientist.
-
Also from your favorite web site:
"Credibility is the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the ability of the observer to believe that statement."
If you're not a scientist, have no science background, and do not work in a science-related field then you have ZERO credibility. I think that makes you a pseudo-scientist.
This isn't a courtroom. This is a scientific debate. My background is irrelevent as is my credibility. The only thing that is relevent is the proof I provide. Nothing I am saying relies on my credibility. Just on the proof I provide.
Example-If I were to say I saw a monkey running down the street. If I had absolutely no evidence just my word to provide. Then that is a case where my personal history or credibility would be required.
However if I say I saw a monkey running down the street and I also provided proof of the monkey. My credibility would be completly irrelevant because I had proof.
None of the claims I am making are personal claims. They are general scientific claims for which there is mountains of evidence. This means that it doesn't matter if I am a lifetime liar or a 8 year old with a 3rd grade education. It doesn't matter as long as I provide proof.
That means attacking my argument based on my "credibility" or "educational history" is definitly an ad hominem logical fallacy.
-
"Credibility is the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the ability of the observer to believe that statement."
If you're not a scientist, have no science background, and do not work in a science-related field then you have ZERO credibility. I think that makes you a pseudo-scientist.
If you want to debate credibility, these men have far more credentials than Michael Behe. Guess what? They all say he is wrong too. ;)
Peter Atkins, Chemistry Professor at Oxford University
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_atkins/behe.html
Keith Robinson, Geneticist and Molecular Biologist at Harvard University
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
Robert Dorit, Evolutionary Biologist at Yale University
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794?fulltext=true
Richard Dawkins, Evolution Professor at Oxford University
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml
-
This isn't a courtroom. This is a scientific debate. My background is irrelevent as is my credibility. The only thing that is relevent is the proof I provide. Nothing I am saying relies on my credibility. Just on the proof I provide.
Example-If I were to say I saw a monkey running down the street. If I had absolutely no evidence just my word to provide. Then that is a case where my personal history or credibility would be required.
However if I say I saw a monkey running down the street and I also provided a real picture of the monkey with myself standing next to it. That would be proof I indeed saw the monkey. My credibility would be completly irrelevant because I had proof.
None of the claims I am making are personal claims. They are general scientific claims for which there is mountains of evidence. This means that it doesn't matter if I am a lifetime liar or a 8 year old with a 3rd grade education. It doesn't matter as long as I provide proof.
That means attacking my argument based on my "credibility" or "educational history" is definitly an ad hominem logical fallacy.
It's not a scientific debate because I'm not a scientist and I don't have a science background. You're not a scientist and don't have a science background (or do you?). All I typically do is try and understand things from a layman's perspective. That's why I read a book written by a scientist. That's why the mousetrap example makes sense to a non-scientist like me.
You, on the other hand, are trying to portray yourself as some kind of scientist when you're clearly not. You are asking to people to trust "evidence" that you provide. You're asking people to take your word over the word of a scientist. I don't trust someone, or the alleged "evidence" they provide in the form of "Wikipedia" and other internet links, if they have no credibility. I talk to my children all the time about credibility. If you don't have it, then no one will believe you, even when you're telling the truth.
You have zero credibility.
-
Don't forget Ernst Mayr, Kenneth R. Miller, Steve Jones, Alfred Russel Wallace, John Maynard Smith, Stephen Jay Gould, and Niles Eldredge, August Weismann, George C. Williams,Allan Wilson, Edward Osborne Wilson, Sewall Wright, Carl Woese and Robert Trivers just to name a few.
All of whom have far more credentials than Behe.
Behe's credentials include professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania(Ivy league huh?)...And that's it!
-
It's not a scientific debate because I'm not a scientist and I don't have a science background. You're not a scientist and don't have a science background (or do you?). All I typically do is try and understand things from a layman's perspective. That's why I read a book written by a scientist. That's why the mousetrap example makes sense to a non-scientist like me.
We are debating a scientific topic therefor it is a scientific debate. A stupid debate but a debate none the less. It doesn't matter who has or doesn't have a scientific background. The fact we are discussing science makes it a debate concerning science. Period.
You didn't read a book by a scientist. You read a book by a pseudo-scientist kook. Him having a degree in biochemistry doesn't make him a "scientist". If Behe was a real scientist then he would of published his work in peer reviewed journals, Not in a book aimed at the general public.
The mousetrap example makes sense to you? Well guess what? It was refuted by one of those people you posted who you claimed "opposed evolution". Haha!
You, on the other hand, are trying to portray yourself as some kind of scientist when you're clearly not. You are asking to people to trust "evidence" that you provide. You're asking people to take your word over the word of a scientist. I don't trust someone, or the alleged "evidence" they provide in the form of "Wikipedia" and other internet links, if they have no credibility. I talk to my children all the time about credibility. If you don't have it, then no one will believe you, even when you're telling the truth.
Didn't I just explain this to you? When I provide proof then my credibility makes no difference. Period. The only reason you're bringing it up is because you don't have an argument of your own.
If you're going to go on who has the most credibility then Behe would fall in dead last in scientific circles.
If you're going to trust who has the most "credibility" then you would need to read the books from the people I posted. All of whom have credentials that dwarf Behe's.
BTW I feel bad for your kids. You're teaching them utter nonsense. Logical fallacies.
-
When I provide proof then my credibility makes no difference.
If i remember correctly when your credibility was an issue you got called out by a reAL SCIENTIST who had no trouble posting his credentials with a way to verify them, and then he proved you wrong and shortly afterwards you ran away and faked your death.
Here it is:
Johnny Apollo doesn't have a PHD in evolutionary biology or an MS in molecular Genetics... he just thinks he does.
His posts belie a very blinkered dogmatic attitude redolent with wrote learning and misunderstandings.
Here's a list of things he didn't/doesn't know that any geneticist would know:
-humans and chimps may be able to interbreed, the genetic gap is close enough the only hurdle to such a hybridization are the complictions of antibody reaction and chromosomal splitting.
-he thinks locals on Flores island may have identified the cave in which the Hobbit skeleton was found by seeing some of the 12,000 year old Hobbit skeletons in the cave. Not through interaction with the Hobbit man. The 12,000 year old Hobbit fossils were found more than 30 feet underground.
-he claims there is no evidence of human/neanderthal interbreeding. There is. It's called the Lapedo child, the skeleton of a human/neanderthal hybrid child dating only 28,500 (originaly dated 24,000) years old. This is a hot topic among geneticists, anthropologists and archaeologists... Johnny's never heard of it.
-Johnny reckons Bigfoot can't exist because there would have to be dozens of them and there simply isn't enough food to support them. Jane Goodall (chimp lady) disagrees... he dismisses her opinion.
The number is probably closer to 50,000... but the food part? That's so moronic as to beggar belief... not enough food to support a couple dozen apemen in North America... weren't there 50,000,000 buffalo there just 200 years ago? Aren't there a couple dozen million domesticated cattle there right now? Aren't there 400,000,000 people living in North America right now? Aren't there a couple of hundred thousand bears in the same woods?
This quote speaks for itself:
"That means if we have a viable population of "bigfoot" living in the american wilderness..We'd have to have DOZENS of them. The amount of food just isn't there. Pure and simple."
...glad to see I'm not the only person who thinks this guy is a blowhard. His reasoning is faulty, his attitude is pompous and aggressive and he seems to constantly be quoting outdated theories as if they were gospel.... stating theories as fact is a sure sign you don't understand how the evidence is collected and evaluated.
By the by, I have an honours degree in Experimental Physics from Trinity College Dublin. I haven't had it conferred yet (did my finals about thre years ago). Anyone wanting to corroborate this can contact TCD at their website
www.tc.ie
My name is Luke David Molloy, my student number was 97560677 ...simply contact the Student Records Office, say your considering hiring me but you want to check my degree. Let them know that the degree hasn't been conferred yet and that's I gave you the student number so you could check it. Shouldn't be a problem... they'll give you my exam results.
The Luke
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=57707.msg1074085#msg1074085 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=57707.msg1074085#msg1074085)
Tyronny you were pretty much called a sad wanna be. Care to comment?
Or will you sit here and deny away or try and deflect the issue by insulting me?
Or just maintain you are not Johnny. HHAHAHAHA
-
sTella's gonna kill me for this, but i couldn't resist. johnny, tyrone....
-
Mcdonald doesn't doubt Evolution.
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
George Miklos is an apologetic Christian.
Jerry Coyne supports evolution 100% and is highly critical of Intelligent Design.
http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20050822&s=coyne082205
John Endler also supports evolution 100% and is against intelligent design.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVB1bInthelab.shtml
http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/eemb/faculty/endler/
Wow! Very convincing!
If you want to play "Scientists who support evolution" then I'd win.
I can name over 100 prominent scientists who support evolution...
...All named Steve!
-
Is this your form of rebuttal? Accuse me of being someone i'm not just so you don't have to respond to my arguments?
::)
-
If i remember correctly when your credibility was an issue you got called out by a reAL SCIENTIST who had no trouble posting his credentials with a way to verify them, and then he proved you wrong and shortly afterwards you ran away and faked your death.
Here it is:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=57707.msg1074085#msg1074085 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=57707.msg1074085#msg1074085)
Tyronny you were pretty much called a sad wanna be. Care to comment?
Or will you sit here and deny away or try and deflect the issue by insulting me?
Or just maintain you are not Johnny. HHAHAHAHA
I don't know who this "Johnny" fellow is..But judging by that post you pasted...It was the Luke David Molloy who was refuted.
Let me guess....You believe in Bigfoot?
-
Get off it dude.
Just be a man and stop playing games.
I enjoy your point of view and feeble atempts at jamming them down people's throats.
No need to keep up the charade Johnny.
-
It really doesn't matter if you believe my name is "Johnny" or if you believe my name is Bob Dole.
Respond to my posts and stop evading them with these red herrings.
-
It really doesn't matter if you believe my name is "Johnny" or if you believe my name is Bob Dole.
Respond to my posts and stop evading them with these red herrings.
I actually have a ton of stuff to respond regarding your posts!
But until you come clean, forget it.
Stop the charade, You are in Germany now.... relax.
-
I actually have a ton of stuff to respond regarding your posts!
But until you come clean, forget it.
Stop the charade, You are in Germany now.... relax.
Then you're wasting my time.
BTW I don't live in Germany. Never even been there.
-
Then you're wasting my time.
BTW I don't live in Germany. Never even been there.
Considering you've lied about most other things..... i'm not suprised
-
Let's discuss the issue at hand instead.
Darwin's Black Box. What scientific findings supports the theories in that book?
And what research discredits it?
YIP
Zack
-
Let's discuss the issue at hand instead.
Darwin's Black Box. What scientific findings supports the theories in that book?
And what research discredits it?
YIP
Zack
Well, I'm certainly no scientist, but these ones here gave this "darwin's black box" author quite a beating...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html)
There's a reason why this kind of books and theories don't make a splash in the scientific community: they are full of shit, and can be easily discredited. Hell, I didn't even had to go past the first google result to get to the link I've posted.
Here's an interesting view on the subject:
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe fails to "disprove" evolution on numerous grounds.
1) Behe himself acknowledges that natural selection and common descent are both accurate descriptions. Whenever anyone cites this book in support of creationism, ask them what Behe says about the age of the universe and the hypothesis that all life descends from one common ancestor. (The answer is in the last paragraph on page 5.) In my experience, the majority of creationists who cite Behe as support have not actually read his book. Rather, they have heard other creationists tout it and parroted the claim.
2) Behe's hypothesis has several major faults. First, like Dawkins, he claims that the molecular level has explanatory superiority to the organism level. There is no question that the operation and interaction of cells and even of single genes is significant in evolution, but not to the exclusion of the significance of organs, organisms, populations, species, or other even more inclusive sets of objects. Behe's reductionist approach misses the importance of these more inclusive levels, and thus can not account for as much as mainstream evolutionary biology.
3) Behe falsely equates [evolution as a whole] with [evolution by natural selection]. Darwin correctly surmised that natural selection was a major factor in evolution, and he personally felt that it was the most important mechanism, but he did not believe it was the only mechanism. In the intervening 142 years, we have discovered that mutation, migration, and drift are also fundamental forces, and the relative significance of mutation to migration (in increasing the variation present in a given gene pool) and of selection to drift (in decreasing that range of variation) are topics of considerable interest to biologists. Behe, while emphasising his efforts to "...search the scientific literature on evolution...", somehow missed this aspect. Given the significance of these additional mechanisms, one must wonder how thorough his search actually was.
4) Behe over-extends the metaphor of molecular "machines". There are ways in which our cells are analogous to human-made machines, and the metaphor is useful in explaining some aspects of cell functioning at an introductory level. However, the metaphor rapidly breaks down on closer examination. First off, our machines do not make copies of themselves, while most of our cells do. Second, our cells operate mainly through a series of chemical reactions, rather than mechanical interactions, so our intuitive ideas about what "machines" are is quite different from the way that cells actually function, and the metaphor is misleading.
5) Behe's main point is that he claims to have found certain molecular systems that could not have evolved by natural selection; ignoring the fact (as mentioned above) that evolution operates by other mechanisms as well. It is this main point that is fatally flawed, because Behe falsely characterises the process of natural selection as both goal-oriented and (more importantly) a drive toward increasing complexity. In other words, Behe asumes that complex systems can arise from simple systems, but that simple systems can not arise from more complex ones. This assumption is trivially false, even in our own "macroscopic" experience. We can remove parts from a complex system and it will continue to function. My car would work just fine if I took out the radio, removed the rear spoiler, pulled off the hubcaps, removed the quarter panels, took off the doors, pulled out the seats, cut off the roof, etc. etc. etc. The same is true of organisms. Obligate internal parasites can lose their motive power (e.g. limbs, "swimming" tails, etc.) without suffering, and in fact many have. Cave fish can lose the ability to see without any decrease in fitness, and so forth. The same is true at the molecular level.
6) The loss of parts and increasing simplicity examples above are significant, because Behe's critique relies on his observation that some molecular systems are "irreducibly complex". In other words, some systems are so simple that removing any piece from them will cause them to cease functioning. If evolution only worked by a process of adding pieces to functioning systems, Behe would have a point, but evolution can also operate by removing redundant pieces from a more complex system. Thus his idea of irreducible complexity is simply irrelevant as a critique of evolution, because it is only in conflict with something that evolutionary theory doesn't actually state. Behe has constructed a straw man caricature of evolution and has successfully argued against that, but this has no bearing on actual evolution.
7) Behe emphasises his "...search of the scientific literature on evolution..." but he also seems to have failed to come across the articles that explain the evolutionary pathways to most of the systems that he cites as examples of irreducible complexity. I just did a search of PubMed for "flagella", sorted by date, and found over 50 articles on the chemistry, evolution, and genetic pathway to the bacterial flagellum (which is one of Behe's most famous examples) that were already in print or in press and publically available at the time Behe published DBB. In other words, one of the "irreducibly complex" systems that he claimed could not be explained by evolution already had been by the time he made the claim. I didn't bother checking for blood clotting or any of his other examples, but you can search PubMed on your own at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ if you wish.
8 ) Behe's most influential claim is that no pathways exist to these irreducibly complex systems, but this claim is misleading. What Behe is really saying is that he, personally, is unaware of any such pathways (as mentioned, other researchers had already found some of them). Behe neglects to inform his readers that nature is not bound by the limits of Behe's imagination. I can't imagine how anyone with such a shoddy grasp of elementary logic that they base an entire book on an argument from incredulity, and yet is still able to get tenure at a university, but nevertheless, there Behe is. That just goes to show that the limits of our ability to imagine something are not limits on reality.
In short, Behe's "black box" is empty. I suspect the same is true of the other creationist tracts that you mentioned, but I'm not willing to shell out my own money to check. I have no desire to tithe to my wife's church, and I'm sure as heck not going to send money to Rev. Moon or any of the other aspiring theocrats behind the creationist jihad. If you have read these books, or know someone who has, and want to present their major arguments and supporting evidence, I'll be happy to listen, but I'm not interested in paying for that dubious "privilege", thanks.
-Floyd
-
LOL. What timing "Martin." ::)
-
Some one is still searching for that ever evasive "Life" ;D
-
Did u study evolution prior to reading this book, which is against evolution?
-
Did u study evolution prior to reading this book, which is against evolution?
It's not an anti-evolution book. All it does is point out the significant problems and unanswered questions about evolution at the cellular level, including the problems with irreducibly complex systems. Poses some very tough questions.
I've been thinking about this whole evolution vs. intelligent design issue the past week or so. In addition to the points Behe raises, I just have a hard time believing our world and solar system got here by accident. There are so many things that just cannot be coincidental, like the 24 hour day, seven day week, 30 day month, and the year, which all relate to perfectly placed things in the environment (sun, moon, stars, etc.). I just don't see happenstance producing such perfect things.
-
Beach Bum, I already demonstrated why Behe's arguments are flawed. I also provided the names of more prominent chemists, geneticists, and biologists who all say he is wrong. Only an impressionable fool would argue Behe's book poses any real threat to evolution.
-
Beach Bum, I already demonstrated why Behe's arguments are flawed. I also provided the names of more prominent chemists, geneticists, and biologists who all say he is wrong. Only an impressionable fool would argue Behe's book poses any real threat to evolution.
You haven't read the book, so your opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on.
-
There are so many things that just cannot be coincidental, like the 24 hour day, seven day week, 30 day month, and the year, which all relate to perfectly placed things in the environment (sun, moon, stars, etc.). I just don't see happenstance producing such perfect things.
Wow.....
-
Wow.....
LOL. No longer a fire breathing, nonspelling Christian?
-
You haven't read the book, so your opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on.
This is one of the reasons I temporarily stopped posting in the religious section. I feel like I'm wasting my time arguing with idiots. It doesn't matter how many times you refute them, they never admit they are wrong. I will reiterate my arguments one last time for you.
1.) Irreducible complexity is basically a rehash of the watchmaker argument. A familiar paradox arises, "if God created IC organisms, then who created God?"
2.) How do we decide when to apply irreducible complexity? Organisms don't come with parts, functions, or systems labeled. These are terms we use for convenience. I showed you how a leg can be considered both IC and non-IC.
3.) Michael Behe argues that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced by evolution. However, there are 4 possible ways for "irreducible complexity" to evolve.
- previously using more parts than necessary for the function
- the parts themselves evolve
- deployment of parts evolves
- new parts are created and may then evolve
4.) Several, more prominent chemists, geneticists and biologists, have read Behe's book and they all say he is wrong. They include Oxford, Harvard, and Yale professors.
-
This is one of the reasons I temporarily stopped posting in the religious section. I feel like I'm wasting my time arguing with idiots. It doesn't matter how many times you refute them, they never admit they are wrong. I will reiterate my arguments one last time for you.
1.) Irreducible complexity is basically a rehash of the watchmaker argument. A familiar paradox arises, "if God created IC organisms, then who created God?"
2.) How do we decide when to apply irreducible complexity? Organisms don't come with parts, functions, or systems labeled. These are terms we use for convenience. I showed you how a leg can be considered both IC and non-IC.
3.) Michael Behe argues that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced by evolution. However, there are 4 possible ways for "irreducible complexity" to evolve.
- previously using more parts than necessary for the function
- the parts themselves evolve
- deployment of parts evolves
- new parts are created and may then evolve
4.) Several, more prominent chemists, geneticists and biologists, have read Behe's book and they all say he is wrong.
"You haven't read the book, so your opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on." Plus you're not a scientist and have no science background.
-
It doesn't require a phD in astronomy to argue the Earth isn't flat. ;)
-
"You haven't read the book, so your opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on." Plus you're not a scientist and have no science background.
Address his argument and stop evading the facts by attacking his credibility.
-
Address his argument and stop evading the facts by attacking his credibility.
What would you know of credibility Mr. passed over lab assistant?
Run along and get a life.
-
It doesn't require a phD in astronomy to argue the Earth isn't flat. ;)
True, but a PhD in geology might help. :)
-
Address his argument and stop evading the facts by attacking his credibility.
Until you read the book and explain your science background I will continue to attack the credibility of you and your multiple alter egos, Sybil.
-
There's no need for me to read Behe's book. Several, more prominent chemists, geneticists and biologists, have read his book and guess what? They all say he is wrong. Among these individuals are Oxford, Harvard, and Yale professors. I find it amusing that you apparently think it's okay for you to post on a subject you know absolutely nothing about yet when I refute your claims, you question my credibility rather than address my arguments.
-
There's no need for me to read Behe's book. Several, more prominent chemists, geneticists and biologists, have read his book and guess what? They all say he is wrong. Among these individuals are Oxford, Harvard, and Yale professors. I find it amusing that you apparently think it's okay for you to post on a subject you know absolutely nothing about yet when I refute your claims, you question my credibility rather than address my arguments.
I find it amusing that you are providing a book review of a book you've never read, particularly when you don't have a science background.
-
I'm merely giving a brief overview of the problems addressed by Behe's critics. If you can post about what you read, then I am allowed do the same. Except what I read is from Oxford, Harvard, and Yale professors who say Behe is wrong. If you disagree, then I suggest you take issue with them. ;D
Peter Atkins, Chemistry Professor at Oxford University
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_atkins/behe.html
Keith Robinson, Geneticist and Molecular Biologist at Harvard University
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
Robert Dorit, Evolutionary Biologist at Yale University
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794?fulltext=true
Richard Dawkins, Evolution Professor at Oxford University
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml
-
LOL. What timing "Martin." ::)
That's kind of getting old bum.
PM a mod if you want to find out the truth, and stop being an asshole.
Except what I read is from Oxford, Harvard, and Yale professors who say Behe is wrong. If you disagree, then I suggest you take issue with them.
Why would anyone even try and defend Behe's arguments when they've been refuted so many damn times? I didn't even know he'd been owned so badly by the scientific community, but just a brief google search brought light on the whole "debate". I mean, this debate shouldn't even be taking place, the whole book's already been trashed several times... ten years ago. Though I understand religious people have their own times, especially with the whole denial going on and all...
Until you read the book and explain your science background I will continue to attack the credibility of you and your multiple alter egos, Sybil.
And what's your science background? Why do you think you have more credibility than any person who has a different opinion? Is it because you have god on your side?
You shouldn't even be mentioning science or "scientific background" for that matter, since you shouldn't believe in it: god created all of the surgeries, drugs, and treatments that make us live past fourty years old... he waited for the twentieth century to bring up all of those advances though, but he pretty much has his own schedule, you know...
Why do you keep talking about freaking alter egos and schizophrenia? What happened here that made all of you so damn paranoid? Sorry, I forgot this is the religious board after all...
Do you actually believe there's only one person in the whole freaking world that's against religion?
-
NO what's getting old is all the multiple name BS from you and your buddy. Get a life.
-
And what's your science background? Why do you think you have more credibility than any person who has a different opinion? Is it because you have god on your side?
You shouldn't even be mentioning science or "scientific background" for that matter, since you shouldn't believe in it: god created all of the surgeries, drugs, and treatments that make us live past fourty years old... he waited for the twentieth century to bring up all of those advances though, but he pretty much has his own schedule, you know...
Stop being paranoid Sybil.
I don't have a science background. I took Biology and Geology in college, but I think that's about it? Cannot remember. I never claimed to be a scientist. That's why I read what other Scientists, like Behe have to say. I've read a book and posted comments from the book. You and your multiple personalities, on the other hand, have critiqued a book you've never read, while trying to sound like you have a science background, when in reality you don't know squat. Frankly, I could care less about the links you post. My kids can do that.
It's funny how posting comments from a scientist like Behe has you and your multiple personalities to panic.
-
I just finished Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." Sort of. He gave both layman and scientific explanations of various topics and gave the reader permission to skip the detailed and footnoted scientific information if you don't have a science background. So . . . . I stuck with the "easy" to understand stuff.
Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. He's not a Christian. Or at least he wasn't when he wrote the book.
Beach Bum,
I haven't read the book, but I saw the DVDs. I enjoyed them and learned a lot from them.
-
If you want to debate credibility, these men have far more credentials than Michael Behe. Guess what? They all say he is wrong too. ;)
a list wit over 300 scientits who are skeptical of evolution
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2114
-
NO what's getting old is all the multiple name BS from you and your buddy. Get a life.
Have a discussion like an adult.
I highly recommend if you don't want to be a hypocrite, then follow your own advice. Why don't you try refuting our arguments instead of attacking our screen names?
-
Stop being paranoid Sybil.
I don't have a science background. I took Biology and Geology in college, but I think that's about it? Cannot remember. I never claimed to be a scientist. That's why I read what other Scientists, like Behe have to say. I've read a book and posted comments from the book. You and your multiple personalities, on the other hand, have critiqued a book you've never read, while trying to sound like you have a science background, when in reality you don't know squat. Frankly, I could care less about the links you post. My kids can do that.
It's funny how posting comments from a scientist like Behe has you and your multiple personalities to panic.
Since we are going around in circles, I will keep reposting my arguments until you decide to respond to them.
1.) Irreducible complexity is basically a rehash of the watchmaker argument. A familiar paradox arises, "if God created IC organisms, then who created God?"
2.) How do we decide when to apply irreducible complexity? Organisms don't come with parts, functions, or systems labeled. These are terms we use for convenience. I showed you how a leg can be considered both IC and non-IC.
3.) Michael Behe argues that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced by evolution. However, there are 4 possible ways for "irreducible complexity" to evolve.
- previously using more parts than necessary for the function
- the parts themselves evolve
- deployment of parts evolves
- new parts are created and may then evolve
4.) Several, more prominent chemists, geneticists and biologists, have read Behe's book and they all say he is wrong. They include Oxford, Harvard, and Yale professors.
I didn't even need to read Behe's book for arguments 1 and 4. I wouldn't say his comments have us in a panic since his book was refuted by the scientific community a while ago. It's just frustrating arguing with an impressionable fool with an anti-evolution agenda.
-
I highly recommend if you don't want to be a hypocrite, then follow your own advice. Why don't you try refuting our arguments instead of attacking our screen names?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
Our screen names?
What are you guys some kind secret cyber organization???
Fucking get a life you morons. Or at the very least, come out and say who you are and stay with your name. That way you can take what's coming to you and dish it out when you can.
If you can't at least do that on the web, in a forum, you are the BIGGEST PUSSIES on the planet.
-
I can't say you took the words right out of my mouth, but I agree with the sentiment. :)
-
So it's okay for you guys to make idiotic threads dedicated to your beliefs and spew crap from your mouths but when we debunk your claims, you tell us to "fucking get a life?" Piss off you mental midget. You automatically think everyone who comes here and defends evolution is the same guy. Do you really think only 1 person in the whole world doesn't share your views? Are you so threatened by us that you need to wrap yourself in a blanket of ignorance to help you sleep at night? If you are too cowardly to refute our arguments, then you are the biggest pussies on the planet.
-
So it's okay for you guys to make idiotic threads dedicated to your beliefs and spew crap from your mouths but when we debunk your claims, you tell us to "fucking get a life?"
No, if you knew how to read instead of flap you gums I told you to get a life because you keep playing games with you names NOt because you debunked or refuted anyone's argument. LEARN TO READ DUMB ASS.
Piss off you mental midget. You automatically think everyone who comes here and defends evolution is the same guy. Do you really think only 1 person in the whole world doesn't share your views?
No i don't think that. there are plenty of evolutionists... including for the most part, me. But what i think is between JA, TP, BF, ans NS you are either Bast or Johnny. Mostly Johnny or just have passwords to each others account.
Are you so threatened by us that you need to wrap yourself in a blanket of ignorance to help you sleep at night? If you are too cowardly to refute our arguments, then you are the biggest pussies on the planet.
People refute you arguements all the time.....BUT IF YOU KNEW HOW TO READ.... you 'll see i called you pussies because you keep playing the name change game so that you don't have take what's coming to you. What ever that is.
Is this really the best argument you can come up with concerning you getting a life and the name change games play? I think you guys are probably better at sucking each other off while one plays the Bad Cop and the other plays the nasty nurse.
Bunch of stupid dumb asses. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You 2 are a bunch pathetic losers with no life.
-
I alread told you I'm not JA or TP. Ask STella to run an IP check. By the way, I assure you I can read. The reason for my comment is b/c you guys spew crap from your mouths yet when someone doesn't agree with you, you automatically jump to the conclusion it's JA. Our screen names don't really matter do they? You will always think everyone who defends evolution is the same person. Then you tell me to get a life. Your statement was completely uncalled for. If anything, you guys need to get a life. You devote a considerable effort attacking our screen names - "oh noes the big bad screen names are out to get us" - rather than address our arguments like intellectuals. There are even threads dedicated to 'exposing' us. Did you ever stop to consider maybe, just maybe, not everyone shares your beliefs? I will say it again, piss off you mental midget.
-
I alread told you I'm not JA or TP. Ask Stella to run an IP check. By the way, I assure you I can read. The reason for my comment is b/c you guys spew crap from your mouths yet when someone doesn't agree with you, you automatically jump to the conclusion it's JA. Our screen names don't really matter do they? You will always think everyone who defends evolution is the same person. Then you tell me to get a life. Your statement was completely uncalled for. If anything, you guys need to get a life. You devote a considerable effort attacking our screen names - "oh noes the big bad screen names are out to get us" - rather than address our arguments like an intellectual. There are even threads dedicated to 'exposing' us. Did you ever stop to consider maybe, just maybe, not everyone shares your beliefs? I will say it again, piss off you mental midget.
I don't believe you. You are Bast or Johnny or just exchanging accounts with each other when it's convienient. And if you can read, why did you connect "getting a life" to refuting creationism?
Also too, if you took the time to read the responses to everyone of your posts you'll see that NO ONE automatically jumped to the conclusion that NS, TP, or BF was Johnny. It took a few posts to see the similar argumentative techniques and the over all Arrogant tone that Johnny is noted for. But then you have to know how to read and comprehend what you read to know that. Ok, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt from this point on.
My statement: "Get a life" is uncalled for? Puh Leeeze! I've never changed my screen names and even if i did, i wouldn't be stupid enough to use the phrase "our screen names" when defending the issue.
Again, you 2 need to get a life. Sorry if that bothers you, but if you can't deal with it, try just being honest. People would respect your opinions and your intelligence much more and not give you so much shit.
-
Here are 2 posts I made over 5 months ago. If I am indeed JA, then it means you guys were getting owned by a 20 yr old when I supposedly posted as him. Do I look german to you? I have been honest about my identify since I began posting here.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=63889.msg961053#msg961053
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=63889.msg961098#msg961098
-
Are we still having problems?
I said that you were either Bast or JA or were exchanging accounts and passwords. So what you've posted there does't mean much.
Addionally, I wasn't the one who originally said you were JA, but based on some of the posts it seemed like it to me. But i am very sure JA is TP and BF.
-
Yes there is a problem. When you attack me and tell me to get a life b/c of a mere hunch that I'm somebody else, then it becomes a problem. So far your comments to me have been uncalled for.
-
Gee, you are as bad as 240 in hearing what you want to hear. In this case reading what you want to read.
Are we still having problems?
I said that you were either Bast or JA or were exchanging accounts and passwords. So what you've posted there does't mean much.
Addionally, I wasn't the one who originally said you were JA, but based on some of the posts it seemed like it to me. But i am very sure JA is TP and BF.
I guess i have to quote my self here to help you re-read it.
Add that to one of your other post earlier:
I highly recommend if you don't want to be a hypocrite, then follow your own advice. Why don't you try refuting our arguments instead of attacking our screen names?
shouldn't you be saying my screen name? No our screen names?
hmmm yeah ok.
nice try, good effort.
Not very well though out from the beggining however.
-
Bullshit, you directly accused me of being either JA or TP. Don't pretend for one sec. that you merely 'suggested' that I might be one of them. You jumped to the conclusion that I'm someone else and harrassed me as such.
NO what's getting old is all the multiple name BS from you and your buddy. Get a life.
But what i think is between JA, TP, BF, ans NS you are either Bast or Johnny.
I don't believe you. You are Bast or Johnny or just exchanging accounts with each other when it's convienient.
Regarding the second half of your post, I said "our screen names" b/c I was standing up for everyone you have attacked so far without merit. Our identities shouldn't even matter on an internet forum. Who cares if 1 person has 10 different arguments or 10 people each have a different argument?
-
What a bunch of assh*les... ::)
You don't even bother to debate anymore, you're just whining and shouting "witch"... go back to Salem if you're so nostalgic.
You're really owning yourselves with the whole "multiple personality" nonsense... at least when it comes to myself (I won't speak for other people, I don't know anyone here for that matter).
Fucking get a life you morons. Or at the very least, come out and say who you are and stay with your name. That way you can take what's coming to you and dish it out when you can.
If you can't at least do that on the web, in a forum, you are the BIGGEST PUSSIES on the planet.
Debate and stop whining...
No one's even tried and refute NeoSeminole's arguments (mainly cause you'd be trying to debate Harvard and Yale scholars)... guess you've run out of material here. Stop with the most stupid discussion ever, and focus on the subject at hand, please.
-
What a bunch of assh*les... ::)
You don't even bother to debate anymore, you're just whining and shouting "witch"... go back to Salem if you're so nostalgic.
You're really owning yourselves with the whole "multiple personality" nonsense... at least when it comes to myself (I won't speak for other people, I don't know anyone here for that matter).
Debate and stop whining...
No one's even tried and refute NeoSeminole's arguments (mainly cause you'd be trying to debate Harvard and Yale scholars)... guess you've run out of material here. Stop with the most stupid discussion ever, and focus on the subject at hand, please.
rrrrriiiiiiight ........ ::)
BTW i'll talk about what the hell i want to. Come out with your real original names or annouce who you are (Johnny or his buddy) and i'll debate you. Until then, keep playing your games all you want. But no one in this forum is buying it. You both aren't half as smart as you think you are.
-
Bullshit, you directly accused me of being either JA or TP. Don't pretend for one sec. that you merely 'suggested' that I might be one of them. You jumped to the conclusion that I'm someone else and harrassed me as such.
Regarding the second half of your post, I said "our screen names" b/c I was standing up for everyone you have attacked so far without merit. Our identities shouldn't even matter on an internet forum. Who cares if 1 person has 10 different arguments or 10 people each have a different argument?
I harrassed you? ROTFLMAO Little sensitive are we? :P
You were standing up for all those i attacked? I think your bullshit has much more volume than mine. What a joke you 2 are.
Look, just come out and say who are, Johnny and friend, what you've been doing and stay with your name. And i'll stay on topic. But keep playing the name game, forget it. It's time to re-examine and review you lives.
-
rrrrriiiiiiight ........ ::)
BTW i'll talk about what the hell i want to. Come out with your real original names or annouce who you are (Johnny or his buddy) and i'll debate you. Until then, keep playing your games all you want. But no one in this forum is buying it. You both aren't half as smart as you think you are.
Couldn't care less if you want to debate me... you might want to try and refute Harvard, Yale, and whatever professors that've been cited here, or merely stop whining and face the facts, "ozmo". You can discredit anyone here, but you can't and never will be able to discredit a Harvard professor, or the whole scientific community, and that must really make you bitter, doesn't it?
Behe and creationism is as scientific as scientology and xenu. And those are the facts.
-
Ozmo, you're the man bro, but there aint a chance in hell that martin1981 or neoseminole are Johnny's gimmicks.
-
Ozmo, you're the man bro, but there aint a chance in hell that martin1981 or neoseminole are Johnny's gimmicks.
Translation:
"Ozmo I want to have traditional muslim greasy man sex with you to cheer you up after Martin1981 severely owned your botty, preparing it thoroughly for the entry of my small greasy paki penis and my seed." - haider
-
Ozmo, you're the man bro, but there aint a chance in hell that martin1981 or neoseminole are Johnny's gimmicks.
The last few posts of NS are definatly not Johnny. If they are he's doing a great acting job. But i don't think there isn't a connection between NS, Bast and Johnny. It's probably Bast. Remember him and Johnny did the whole "faked Johnny's death" preceeded by the scientology scam. I could be completely wrong. NS could have no connection. But I'd bet they do have a connection.
-
The last few posts of NS are definatly not Johnny. If they are he's doing a great acting job. But i don't think there isn't a connection between NS, Bast and Johnny. It's probably Bast. Remember him and Johnny did the whole "faked Johnny's death" preceeded by the scientology scam. I could be completely wrong. NS could have no connection. But I'd bet they do have a connection.
Is it a "connection" like yours and haiders man-love connection, or something more professional?
-
Is it a "connection" like yours and haiders man-love connection, or something more professional?
Translation:
I want to rub my face in haider's butt. OzmO you are ruining my moments with his hairy-ness. - Nordic Superman
-
OzmO, ...are you mad at me for some reason? :'(
-
OzmO, ...are you mad at me for some reason? :'(
No, what would make you think that?
-
The way you ignore my text messages through Skype. :-\
-
I'm so sorry >:(
I do 99% of my computing at work or on my laptop in my family room.
I have skype on my desktop computer which is in my kitchen/dinning area. My kids pretty much use it exclusively.
My son is on it right now, i'll check it later on. :)
-
If I had known that, ...I might have been tempted to say something naughty. {giggle} :P
-
most of the arguments posted for evolution have been very week, ala tyrone. you used myopia as an example of a organ system not needing all its parts to function which in turn is a argument against irr complex. first no one can explain the evolution of the human eye, cite some refs if your so sure. also, myopia is a deformity per se and not a abortion of a part of the eye. the argument is that the eye had to evolve from a singularity and not until it was 100% complete would it serve its purpose. so using that line of thinking it goes to say that why would an eye evolve from 5% to 43% and so on if it offers not adaptory benefit, which it wouldnt until 100%. take the lens away and you cant see, take away all the other parts and the same thing occurs. so why would the eye keep evolving when it is useless unless whole?. also, mutations generally dont add up to insertions they add up to deletions, read lee m spetners book not by chance if you'd like scientific discussion on the topic.
also, if you are interested in this debate i suggest you guys read some stuff on autocatalysis.
-
alright ns, on to you i guess since you actually want to debate the topic like an adult. from palentology records it has been witnessed that evolution is not gradual but abrupt with respects to many organisms. also, i want to point out to you that evolution is just a theory and not fact like you champion it to be. also, you need to understand something about cosmology that from the theory of relativity and to the information gleaned from redshift ala the big bang it is apparent that the universe is expanding, this is a reasonable deduction no. ok, so using this logic there must be a temporal extremity which results in a singularity known as the big bang. usign the laws of thermodynamics and entropy would we have to assume that the universe started from nothing to become something. sorry, this isnt logical at all and this in were the intelligent designer comes into play. the idea of a god is the idea of a being that just is, which exists outside our time-space continuim. this plays back to the theological, cosmology ontonlogical argument etc.. in which many things dont add up and ala god. this i dont buy however, you keep stating the blind watchmaker argument as denounced by a one richard dawkins who is a gearbox. the arguments are not the same at all in the watchmaker argument applies less to molecular biology and more towards structures and unity in nature. with regards to the irr complex, it simply states that on a cellular level which preceeds the organism level the machinery could not have developed in a step like fashion becasue what is the adaptable advantage to half an eye, or vestibular organ( i understand im at the organ level). at the cell level, mitochodria, ribosomes all would have to develope equally and concurrently to function at all. the arguments against micheal behe arent concrete because some scientists says so. it is a theory keep that in mind when you argue it like it is fact.
so answer this, why would a eye and its parts develope if nothing short of a whole eye functions. take away the retina, and guess what happens. so behe is arguing that for it to evolve becaue it is a advantage everything would have to evolve at the same time for it to become advantageous. 5% of a eye offers no benefit so why would it develop?
-
so answer this, why would a eye and its parts develope if nothing short of a whole eye functions. take away the retina, and guess what happens. so behe is arguing that for it to evolve becaue it is a advantage everything would have to evolve at the same time for it to become advantageous. 5% of a eye offers no benefit so why would it develop?
Because down the line somewhere on the evolutionary tree an animal existed that had a slightly light reactive patch of cells which gave it an advantage on its competition. Because of it's success the animal with the light sensitive cells became more populous, resulting in greater chance of genetic mutation which would lead to further development of the eye.
And so the cycle continues, until walla, and eye as we know it exists.
-
Because down the line somewhere on the evolutionary tree an animal existed that had a slightly light reactive patch of cells which gave it an advantage on its competition. Because of it's success the animal with the light sensitive cells became more populous, resulting in greater chance of genetic mutation which would lead to further development of the eye.
And so the cycle continues, until walla, and eye as we know it exists.
you still cant grasp the concept, what advantage does an reactive patch of photosensitive cells have? i assume your talking about rods and cones. do you know anything about spatial frequency analysis as it relates to optics, i think not. basically we see in positives and negatives if you will which can be expressed as a logarithmic value. hence, you would need the whole visual field for advantage to come into play, not a receptive patch, which means what exactly, and were did you get this info. and stop with the genetic mutation, they do not result in favorable outcomes, it has been documented, ala lee m spetners book. i feel like you guys are just arguing invalid points for the sake of it.
-
alright ns, on to you i guess since you actually want to debate the topic like an adult. from palentology records it has been witnessed that evolution is not gradual but abrupt with respects to many organisms. also, i want to point out to you that evolution is just a theory and not fact like you champion it to be.
Evolution is both fact and theory. Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. The theory of evolution explains the mechanism of this phenomena. I've never claimed evolutionary theory is fact. By definition, a scientific theory can never be proven. Gravity is also a scientific theory. I suppose you don't believe in gravity either b/c it "hasn't been proven?"
also, you need to understand something about cosmology that from the theory of relativity and to the information gleaned from redshift ala the big bang it is apparent that the universe is expanding, this is a reasonable deduction no. ok, so using this logic there must be a temporal extremity which results in a singularity known as the big bang. usign the laws of thermodynamics and entropy would we have to assume that the universe started from nothing to become something. sorry, this isnt logical at all and this in were the intelligent designer comes into play. the idea of a god is the idea of a being that just is, which exists outside our time-space continuim.
So you think a universe that has always existed isn't logical, but you embrace the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient, multi-dimensional being created the cosmos with a wave of his hand? ::) I suggest you look up quantum fluctuation if you are truly interested in learning about the origin of the universe.
this plays back to the theological, cosmology ontonlogical argument etc.. in which many things dont add up and ala god. this i dont buy however, you keep stating the blind watchmaker argument as denounced by a one richard dawkins who is a gearbox. the arguments are not the same at all in the watchmaker argument applies less to molecular biology and more towards structures and unity in nature. with regards to the irr complex, it simply states that on a cellular level which preceeds the organism level the machinery could not have developed in a step like fashion becasue what is the adaptable advantage to half an eye, or vestibular organ( i understand im at the organ level). at the cell level, mitochodria, ribosomes all would have to develope equally and concurrently to function at all. the arguments against micheal behe arent concrete because some scientists says so.
The argument from irreducible complexity is basically a rehash of the watchmaker argument. Michael Behe argues that irreducibly complex systems are too intricate to be produced by evolution. The watchmaker argument claims the universe is too complex to have arisen by natural processes. However, both arguments are self-defeating by their own logic. An endless series of "who created the creation which created...?" emerges without providing an answer.
so answer this, why would a eye and its parts develope if nothing short of a whole eye functions. take away the retina, and guess what happens. so behe is arguing that for it to evolve becaue it is a advantage everything would have to evolve at the same time for it to become advantageous. 5% of a eye offers no benefit so why would it develop?
There are 4 possible ways for "irreducible complexity" to evolve.
- previously using more parts than necessary for the function
- the parts themselves evolve
- deployment of parts evolves
- new parts are created and may then evolve
In the past, a function may have been done with more parts than necessary. The "extra" part(s) may have been lost over time leaving an irreducibly complex system, or the parts may have co-adapted to perform even better at the expense of not being able to function without each other. The parts themselves may have evolved. Another important fact is that DNA evolves. Each protein that your body makes is coded in your DNA and is subject to mutation and evolution. This is referred to this as deployment of parts. When a protein is deployed out of its usual context, it may be co-opted for a different function. Lastly, brand new parts may have been created and evolved.
-
ok i will stop arguing with you, you keep posting the same material and when i debunk it, namely how no matter if insertion and deletion of parts occur like in your outline the eye does not benefit a organism until it is complete.
also, quantum fluctuation hasnt been demonstrated and only works for brief pauses per se, not the eventually infinite amount of time that is necessary for evolution to occur. you show me some material explaining the development of rna or amino acids from nothing, as purported by quantum fluctuation and you will win a nobel prize. yes autocatalysis is a good theory and has been demonstrated rudimentally but it is inherently idiotic to make the jump to othe formation f dna etc involved in the essence of life. you keep raising the same points but dont argue mine. your dicotomy doesnt work for the eye let alone a multitude of other complex phenomenon.
i dont know what the designer looks like, or if their is one, just that the world appears to have supernatural input not seen by science. your theory doesnt fit and logic leads someone to beleive intelligence would have to play a part in making things that need to be made, hence the idea of an intelligent designer.
-
ok i will stop arguing with you, you keep posting the same material and when i debunk it, namely how no matter if insertion and deletion of parts occur like in your outline the eye does not benefit a organism until it is complete.
Each of my paragraphs were a direct response to your post. If I used the same material before, it's only b/c you asked the same questions. I already explained 4 possible ways for "irreducible complexity" to evolve. The problem with your argument is that you are only looking at the finished product. Imagine trying to explain the evolution of flight starting with the jet engine. There are several intermediates of eyes in nature. It is possible for the eye to have evolved in stages, each of which is functional.
(http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rdmp1c/teaching/L1/Evolution/l2/eye1.gif)
also, quantum fluctuation hasnt been demonstrated and only works for brief pauses per se, not the eventually infinite amount of time that is necessary for evolution to occur. you show me some material explaining the development of rna or amino acids from nothing, as purported by quantum fluctuation and you will win a nobel prize. yes autocatalysis is a good theory and has been demonstrated rudimentally but it is inherently idiotic to make the jump to othe formation f dna etc involved in the essence of life. you keep raising the same points but dont argue mine. your dicotomy doesnt work for the eye let alone a multitude of other complex phenomenon.
My comment about quantum fluctuation refers to the origin of the universe. I was NOT suggesting a mechanism for evolution. Re-read my last post.
i dont know what the designer looks like, or if their is one, just that the world appears to have supernatural input not seen by science. your theory doesnt fit and logic leads someone to beleive intelligence would have to play a part in making things that need to be made, hence the idea of an intelligent designer.
What exactly do you think is my theory? And please explain how it "doesn't fit." I disagree logic would lead a person to conclude an intelligent force designed the universe. Why do some animals which spend their entire lives in water have lungs instead of gills? How come ostriches have wings if they cannot fly? What is the purpose of viruses? There are plenty of reasons why intelligent design is flawed.
-
both are hugely flawed, mainly because we dont have enough information. your quantum fluctuation paradigm was an argument for creation or the start of the time space continuim, it doesnt work, and autocatalysis is a better argument for evolution. evolution is a bad theory with some many holes, that keep getting picked apart it will succumb to other theories. however, i think parts of evolution like abiogenesis, etc.. do have their place although proving evolution does not infer lack of design, just the method in which he/she/it did so. i am agnostic with leanings towards intelligent design although my opinion waivers almost dailly because of new information i glean and things i read. i think the most intelligent position is agnostic simply because no one can truly know, and like you've stated there are many flaws. although how do you explain the random occurance of rna in space and the extremely high probability( which is considered impossible) needed for dna to arrange in such a manner to exhibit life?. the redundency in dna does not account for it and numerous others have stated its impossiblity. given infinite amount of years, im being generous as the universe appears to be finite, the arrangement would not occur. this is were ID comes into play because if someone could arrange such a impossibility without difficulty, similar to the rushmore argument.
your making a huge leap from pigmented cells to an eye as purported in your diagram. however, i will agree that irreducibly complex is a weak argument on the surface, but as described in his book there is more to it then you and i are giving it credit for.
-
i dont really know what your theory is, your arguing against behe so i assume your a evolutionist. however, it doesn't fit because using your empirical scientific tools ,laws would have to be violated to account for the occurence of life in the first place. and evolution is full of holes. also, once your laws are violated shouldnt your point become moot, however, evo hang on to their theory when it clearly doesnt explain everything. however, i understand your stance against creationism, but creation seems infinitely easier, but the problem is that a supernatural being is not that easy to account for.
-
both are hugely flawed, mainly because we dont have enough information. your quantum fluctuation paradigm was an argument for creation or the start of the time space continuim, it doesnt work, and autocatalysis is a better argument for evolution.
I agree the role of quantum fluctuation in the universe's origin is poorly understood, but don't liken it to creationism. Science attempts to understand the world around us by trial and error. When a hypothesis is proven wrong, it is discarded for another until we get closer to the truth. Creationism holds no substance b/c it can never be tested. How do you prove or disprove there is a creator? It's impossible. A "theory" that cannot be tested lacks credibility. I don't know why you say quantum fluctuation doesn't work b/c there is evidence of its presence during the formation of the universe.
"Small quantum fluctuations in the inflaton field ultimately led to the formation of everything we see today, and they also left a visible imprint on the brightness of the "cosmic background radiation"—a cold light that originated in the Big Bang and still permeates the universe today. The fluctuations are evident in slight temperature differences in the background radiation that appear as slightly hot and slightly cold blotches in the sky."
American Scientist (peer reviewed journal)
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14770 (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14770)
evolution is a bad theory with some many holes, that keep getting picked apart it will succumb to other theories. however, i think parts of evolution like abiogenesis, etc.. do have their place although proving evolution does not infer lack of design, just the method in which he/she/it did so.
I assure you evolution is not in any danger of being disproven. In fact, the evidence for the theory grows everyday. Evolution does not include abiogenesis like you suggest. They are 2 separate branches of science. Abiogenesis seeks to explain the origin of life whereas evolution deals with what happened after life originated. Intelligent design, or creationsim, has no place in a science discussion.
how do you explain the random occurance of rna in space and the extremely high probability( which is considered impossible) needed for dna to arrange in such a manner to exhibit life?. the redundency in dna does not account for it and numerous others have stated its impossiblity. given infinite amount of years, im being generous as the universe appears to be finite, the arrangement would not occur. this is were ID comes into play because if someone could arrange such a impossibility without difficulty, similar to the rushmore argument.
It is possible for DNA to arrange itself in far less time than what is proposed by creationists. The evolutionary model for the origin of protein sequences involves multiple rounds of random mutation followed by multiple selection steps. Creationists often like to cite the example of a tornado blowing through a junkyard randomly assembling a 747 airplane. However, this is false portrayal of evolution b/c it demands a specific outcome in a single step. A more accurate anology would be if millions of tornados are blowing through millions of junkyards simulatenously, then stopped. The parts assembled that correspond to a 747 from each junkyard are combined into new junkyards and the process repeated until you have a fully formed 747.
This site does a far better job of answering your question than I could hope to do. Read "1.2.3 Statistical impossibility of proteins?"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/)
your making a huge leap from pigmented cells to an eye as purported in your diagram. however, i will agree that irreducibly complex is a weak argument on the surface, but as described in his book there is more to it then you and i are giving it credit for.
I merely provided examples of intermediate eyes in nature that are functional. You claimed the eye is too complex to have evolved in stages, yet even the most simplistic eyes can see.
-
throwing in the towel already?
-
I hope not, it looked like to me like he'd last longer than that.
-
no, ill make some posts soon, i just have a life outside of this board so ill get back to you tommorrow on your intermediate eye theory and how it relates to the mammalian eye. many flaws in your logic, i'll post my thoughts tommorrow.
-
Flaws in my logic? lol I'm merely paraphrasing what I read from science websites. The theories I advocate in my posts are not mine, but rather the collective works of Harvard, Yale, and Oxford professors. If you can disprove what I say, then perhaps you should submit your findings to The National Academy of Sciences and recieve your Nobel Prize. Good luck! ;D
-
He'll need more than luck........... He'll need an act of GOD to do that. :)
-
you've admitted defeat, here i am arguing my own logic and points and your a copy and paste artist. haha, real intelligent. the flaw in your logic is you assume that the mammalian eye evolved from a lower level eye form seen in nature. so what did we evolve from then. ah monkeys, so show me how the monkey eye evolved and why receptive light patches have any relevance to the human eye. so there are lower forms of the eye in nature but you purport that our eye evolved from this, totally different machinery and processes. what is your contention here, you assume speciation as evidenced from your post, the receptive light patches would not be evident in nature if evolution was the cause. there is no evidence that the receptive light patches or rudiment eyes you claim can evolve or have evolved into the human eye, if there was the person who desribed this mechanism would be a nobel prize winner. and disproving the literature is nothing, its only a theory and disproving a theory with holes is not nobel material. i have other points but i wait till you respond.
-
you've admitted defeat, here i am arguing my own logic and points and your a copy and paste artist. haha, real intelligent.
I told you that I paraphrase what I read. It's something called "doing your homework" so that you know what you are talking about. You may have heard of it before. I assure you my posts contain my own words. I also include links to materials I read for reference. Real intelligent? I'd like to think so. I would rather use facts and science to debate with rather than blindly argue my own opinion.
the flaw in your logic is you assume that the mammalian eye evolved from a lower level eye form seen in nature. so what did we evolve from then. ah monkeys, so show me how the monkey eye evolved and why receptive light patches have any relevance to the human eye.
First off, humans did not evolve from monkeys otherwise monkeys would be extinct. Humans and monkeys both share a common ancestor. Second, I never assumed anything. You claimed the eye could not have evolved in stages b/c it requires all of its parts to be functional. I merely provided examples of intermediate eyes in nature that work. Biologists use a range of light sensitive structures in organisms to hypothesize how the eyes may have evolved. Eyes corresponding to each stage in this sequence have been found in existing species. Third, I cannot "show" you how the eye evolved. I can only suggest plausible mechanisms that explain this process.
so there are lower forms of the eye in nature but you purport that our eye evolved from this, totally different machinery and processes. what is your contention here, you assume speciation as evidenced from your post, the receptive light patches would not be evident in nature if evolution was the cause. there is no evidence that the receptive light patches or rudiment eyes you claim can evolve or have evolved into the human eye, if there was the person who desribed this mechanism would be a nobel prize winner. and disproving the literature is nothing, its only a theory and disproving a theory with holes is not nobel material. i have other points but i wait till you respond.
I already described to you 4 possible ways for a complex organ such as the eye to evolve machinery. You keep making the mistake of trying to work backwards while looking at the final product. This is akin to someone who's never heard of planes trying to figure out the evolution of flight starting with the F-22 Raptor.
-
yes but i explained how your four possible ways are inherently flawed. also, i am taking from knowledge of study and reading and have no need to do my homework on the internet as ive already done it. although you attack my reductionist model, going both ways is possible to arrive at singularity wouldnt you agree.
-
I told you that I paraphrase what I read. It's something called "doing your homework" so that you know what you are talking about. You may have heard of it before. I assure you my posts contain my own words. I also include links to materials I read for reference. Real intelligent? I'd like to think so. I would rather use facts and science to debate with rather than blindly argue my own opinion.
First off, humans did not evolve from monkeys otherwise monkeys would be extinct. Humans and monkeys both share a common ancestor. Second, I never assumed anything. You claimed the eye could not have evolved in stages b/c it requires all of its parts to be functional. I merely provided examples of intermediate eyes in nature that work. Biologists use a range of light sensitive structures in organisms to hypothesize how the eyes may have evolved. Eyes corresponding to each stage in this sequence have been found in existing species. Third, I cannot "show" you how the eye evolved. I can only suggest plausible mechanisms that explain this process.
I already described to you 4 possible ways for a complex organ such as the eye to evolve machinery. You keep making the mistake of trying to work backwards while looking at the final product. This is akin to someone who's never heard of planes trying to figure out the evolution of flight starting with the F-22 Raptor.
Question: If we didn't evolve from monkeys what did we evolve from?
-
yes but i explained how your four possible ways are inherently flawed.
how so? All you have done is claim that the eye cannot have evolved b/c it is too complex in its current state. This is merely your opinion (a wrong one may I add).
also, i am taking from knowledge of study and reading and have no need to do my homework on the internet as ive already done it. although you attack my reductionist model, going both ways is possible to arrive at singularity wouldnt you agree.
You mean the same "knowledge" which led you to think a scientific theory can be proven? The same "knowledge" that led you to believe evolution includes abiogenesis? The same "knowledge" which led you to think quantum fluctuations are involved in any way with evolution? The same "knowledge" that made you think humans evolved from monkeys? Do you really believe you don't need to do any research before you debate evolution? Ha ha. Give me a break!
-
Question: If we didn't evolve from monkeys what did we evolve from?
Humans and monkeys evolved from a primate ancestor. ;D
-
Did apes evolve from the same ones also? Are monkeys the same as apes or are they very different?
(Thanks for answering my first question)
-
abiogensis is a precursor in my opinion to evolution and debate about origin is relevant. gravity was a theory, i assume to had a theory wouldnt you. you brought up quantum fluctuations man, not me. you said it explained origin, false. i didnt think humans evolved from monkeys, i was being facetious in that many think that at an attempt to discredit evolution. i wasnt saying i dont need to research just that me arguing with harvard profs doesnt seem like my intention, unless you are that harvard prof. thats why arguing with someone over the internet is dumb you cant win. face to face would be better ie jonny apollo's rant.
-
Did apes evolve from the same ones also? Are monkeys the same as apes or are they very different?
(Thanks for answering my first question)
Primates is the biological order that contains lemurs, monkeys, and apes. Humans belong to the apes category. So you could say monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans all evolved from a primate ancestor.
-
speciation by your account.
-
Primates is the biological order that contains lemurs, monkeys, and apes. Humans belong to the apes category. So you could say monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans all evolved from a primate ancestor.
I apologize for grouping you with Johnny and Co. earlier. Thanks for the answers. :)
-
I waited for you to post your other points, but I assume you want me to respond first since you haven't yet.
abiogensis is a precursor in my opinion to evolution and debate about origin is relevant.
You cannot use abiogenesis to critique evolution b/c they are not the same theory.
gravity was a theory, i assume to had a theory wouldnt you.
It is still a theory. In science, a theory can never be proven.
you brought up quantum fluctuations man, not me. you said it explained origin, false.
I mentioned quantum fluctuations in response to an earlier post where you claimed God must have created the universe. You keep confusing quantum fluctuation with evolution.
i didnt think humans evolved from monkeys, i was being facetious in that many think that at an attempt to discredit evolution.
It's hard for me to tell when you are being serious or not. You've made other comments in this thread which made me question your understanding of evolution.
i wasnt saying i dont need to research just that me arguing with harvard profs doesnt seem like my intention, unless you are that harvard prof. thats why arguing with someone over the internet is dumb you cant win. face to face would be better ie jonny apollo's rant.
That's not what you said earlier. ;)
also, i am taking from knowledge of study and reading and have no need to do my homework on the internet as ive already done it.
-
i understand what quantum fluctuation is. i stated abiogensis as someone brought up creation and you said to read about quantum fluctuation. it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution in the slightest. i was arguing for creation against evolution, and continued my creation argument. i will stick to the topic of irreducibly complex however. i also, dont see how this argument can continue, you posit a mechanism with no proof other then your ideas. show me a study were eye evolution has been demonstrated or at least were simple forms of eye ( your receptive light patch) have evolved into rods, cones, lateral giniculate nucleus, etc. basically an eye system based on a complexity model.
-
i understand what quantum fluctuation is. i stated abiogensis as someone brought up creation and you said to read about quantum fluctuation. it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution in the slightest. i was arguing for creation against evolution, and continued my creation argument.
Wrong, you were talking about the origin of the universe. You arrived at the conclusion that God must have done it. I suggested you look up quantum fluctuation. You confused this with evolution and a series of misunderstandings followed. Here is the original discussion that took place.
also, you need to understand something about cosmology that from the theory of relativity and to the information gleaned from redshift ala the big bang it is apparent that the universe is expanding, this is a reasonable deduction no. ok, so using this logic there must be a temporal extremity which results in a singularity known as the big bang. usign the laws of thermodynamics and entropy would we have to assume that the universe started from nothing to become something. sorry, this isnt logical at all and this in were the intelligent designer comes into play. the idea of a god is the idea of a being that just is, which exists outside our time-space continuim.
So you think a universe that has always existed isn't logical, but you embrace the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient, multi-dimensional being created the cosmos with a wave of his hand? ::) I suggest you look up quantum fluctuation if you are truly interested in learning about the origin of the universe.
i also, dont see how this argument can continue, you posit a mechanism with no proof other then your ideas. show me a study were eye evolution has been demonstrated or at least were simple forms of eye ( your receptive light patch) have evolved into rods, cones, lateral giniculate nucleus, etc. basically an eye system based on a complexity model.
Rods and cones evolved from light-senstive cells in the brain that migrated into the eye. This site explains the study that was done which is responsible for the discovery.
http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html
-
It's not an anti-evolution book. All it does is point out the significant problems and unanswered questions about evolution at the cellular level, including the problems with irreducibly complex systems. Poses some very tough questions.
I've been thinking about this whole evolution vs. intelligent design issue the past week or so. In addition to the points Behe raises, I just have a hard time believing our world and solar system got here by accident. There are so many things that just cannot be coincidental, like the 24 hour day, seven day week, 30 day month, and the year, which all relate to perfectly placed things in the environment (sun, moon, stars, etc.). I just don't see happenstance producing such perfect things.
You know that the calendar, ( with the 24h day, 7 day week , etc) are human created ADAPTED to these "perfectly placed things"
I get lost for words when I see things written here that are so full of ignorance.
And to the topic, what have creation science contributed with proof, other than the "darwinism theory have some holes, therefore OUR theory must be correct".
Sorry it just doesn't work that way, this will most likely never even reach a respected scientific magazine. And will only just exist to please christians and others alike .
-
You know that the calendar, ( with the 24h day, 7 day week , etc) are human created ADAPTED to these "perfectly placed things"
I get lost for words when I see things written here that are so full of ignorance.
And to the topic, what have creation science contributed with proof, other than the "darwinism theory have some holes, therefore OUR theory must be correct".
Sorry it just doesn't work that way, this will most likely never even reach a respected scientific magazine. And will only just exist to please christians and others alike .
What is the scientific explanation for the 7 day week?
There is plenty of science in Behe's book. You should read it.
From a pure common sense standpoint, most of the evolution theory does not make sense to me. It does not provide a rational explanation for the origin of life. It does not provide a rational explanation for the absence of transitional fossils. It does not provide a rational explanation for the apparent end of the evolution of species.
Despite that, it is taught and accepted as a fact across the country.
-
There is plenty of science in Behe's book. You should read it.
There's no need to read Behe's book, it was debunked a while ago by the scientific community.
From a pure common sense standpoint, most of the evolution theory does not make sense to me. It does not provide a rational explanation for the origin of life. It does not provide a rational explanation for the absence of transitional fossils. It does not provide a rational explanation for the apparent end of the evolution of species.
Evolution does not seek to explain the origin of life. No wonder the theory doesn't make sense to you. Plenty of trasitional fossils have been discovered.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg)
(http://starklab.slu.edu/Bio104/HorseEvol.jpg)
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/164pic1.jpg)
There is no "apparent end of the evolution of species" like you say. The reason why we don't see many animals today evolving into new species is b/c the process usually takes thousands of years. Humans simply do not live long enough to witness this.
-
ok, so we are arguing creationism vs evolution but origin isn't relevant? i didn't say evolution had anything to do with origin, just that it is a argument for creation.
also, empirical science cannot be used to study the supernatural ala creationism so there is lies the problem.it has a faith component much like evolution.
neo speciation has never been soundly documented and there is a lack of transitional fossils, why do you argue this.
-
b/c you are wrong. ;D
-
ok, so we are arguing creationism vs evolution but origin isn't relevant? i didn't say evolution had anything to do with origin, just that it is a argument for creation.
also, empirical science cannot be used to study the supernatural ala creationism so there is lies the problem.it has a faith component much like evolution.
neo speciation has never been soundly documented and there is a lack of transitional fossils, why do you argue this.
There's faith in believing in evolution? ::) People believe in evolution because it's fact. The religious are biased, so they'll never look at a way in which they can understand and will always look for holes.
For example, right now you're look for transitional fossils when they're clearly right in front of you and you're not taking into account that many fossils have yet to be discovered. Creationist tried the same thing when they argued over a lack of transitional fossils for whales, but those fossils were eventually discovered and creationists were sent back to the drawing board.
-
im not a creationist, and evolution is not fact, sorry. even if evolution were entirely true it wouldn't do anything to discredit creationism, merely just list the mechanism. evolution as a all encompassing theory is not correct, i do agree with some parts but things like speciation get me everytime.
-
here are a few questions i asked in the other thread about evolution vs creationism. it doesn't solely relate to the debate at hand but try to answer them neo.
1 Cosmic Evolution - the origin of time, space, and matter. This is the big bang. 2. Chemical Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. (If the Big Bang produced hydrogen and some helium, how did we get the others? 3. Stellar and planetary Evolution - the origin of stars and planets. (No one has ever seen a star form. What you see is a spot getting brighter and you assume a star is forming. It could be the dust is clearing and there’s a star behind it. No one has ever proven the formation of a single star. Yet it’s estimated that there are enough stars for every person on earth to own 2 trillion stars.) 4. Organic Evolution - the origin of life. Somehow life has to get started from non-living material. (But spontaneous generation was proven wrong 200 years ago.) 5. Macro Evolution - Changing from one kind of animal into another. (Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. Big or small it’s still a dog. Dog, wolf, and coyote may have had a common ancestor, but they’re still the same kind of animal.) 6. Micro Evolution - Variations within kinds (big dogs and little dogs). Only this one has been observed
so evolution from single cell bacteria into plants, animals and the like, seems a bit supernatural to me, or just as much as a someone omnipotent creating animals, plants seperately. as well, this single cell bacteria is the common ancestor of all animals, plants etc.
-
here are a few questions i asked in the other thread about evolution vs creationism. it doesn't solely relate to the debate at hand but try to answer them neo.
I welcome any questions you have. I will try to respond to the best of my abilities, but I will not hold your hand. I can only guide you to the answers. I include links in my posts so that you may research on your own if you wish to learn more.
1 Cosmic Evolution - the origin of time, space, and matter. This is the big bang.
We will probably never know the events that occured before the formation of our universe, but scientists have a clear understanding of what happened immediately following the Big Bang.
This site does a fantastic job of explaining cosmic evolution.
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
2. Chemical Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. (If the Big Bang produced hydrogen and some helium, how did we get the others?
Stars fuse hydrogen to helium, and helium to heavier atoms. Heavier elements are formed in denser areas of the star. Some stars undergo a supernova which blasts these elements into space.
(http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/chm1046/notes/Nucleo/Bigcore.jpg)
3. Stellar and planetary Evolution - the origin of stars and planets. (No one has ever seen a star form. What you see is a spot getting brighter and you assume a star is forming. It could be the dust is clearing and there’s a star behind it. No one has ever proven the formation of a single star. Yet it’s estimated that there are enough stars for every person on earth to own 2 trillion stars.)
The distribution of hydrogen and helium in the universe is not homogenous. Over time, regions of higher density may collapse and coalesce due to gravitational forces. This cloud of collapsing interstellar hydrogen can be so massive that the gravitational forces at the center cause hydrogen atoms to undergo fusion. The birth of a star has been observed by scientists.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s249630.htm
4. Organic Evolution - the origin of life. Somehow life has to get started from non-living material. (But spontaneous generation was proven wrong 200 years ago.)
Spontaneous generation was the belief that non-living matter can give rise to living organisms like worms and maggots. This is a stark contrast from the gradual evolution of amino acids and single cells advanced by other theories. For all we know, early life on Earth may have been carried here on an asteroid from another galaxy.
5. Macro Evolution - Changing from one kind of animal into another. (Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. Big or small it’s still a dog. Dog, wolf, and coyote may have had a common ancestor, but they’re still the same kind of animal.)
;D ;D ;D
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Misc/Bush.jpg)
6. Micro Evolution - Variations within kinds (big dogs and little dogs). Only this one has been observed.
Yes
so evolution from single cell bacteria into plants, animals and the like, seems a bit supernatural to me, or just as much as a someone omnipotent creating animals, plants seperately. as well, this single cell bacteria is the common ancestor of all animals, plants etc.
I disagree. The origin of life can be explained by the laws of chemistry and physics. It was only a matter of time before stars formed elements, which combined to form molecules that combined to form amino acids, which evolved into very simple cells, and thus life began. I can understand how this whole process may seem impossible to someone who never learned science. However, belief in an omnipotent, omniscient multi-dimensional being who created everything is absurd to the highest degree.
-
see my other thread. your points are opinion and sci evidence refutes them, big banger.
-
ha ha, I sense frustration b/c you keep getting refuted by me. Some parts of my last post were opinion but not all. The following are not opinion.
Stars fuse hydrogen to helium, and helium to heavier atoms. Heavier elements are formed in denser areas of the star. Some stars undergo a supernova which blasts these elements into space.
The distribution of hydrogen and helium in the universe is not homogenous. Over time, regions of higher density may collapse and coalesce due to gravitational forces. This cloud of collapsing interstellar hydrogen can be so massive that the gravitational forces at the center cause hydrogen atoms to undergo fusion. The birth of a star has been observed by scientists.
Spontaneous generation was the belief that non-living matter can give rise to living organisms like worms and maggots. This is a stark contrast from the gradual evolution of amino acids and single cells advanced by other theories. For all we know, early life on Earth may have been carried here on an asteroid from another galaxy.
I would like to see the scientific evidence that disproves the aforementioned. ;D
-
same goes for your posts. the formation of a star is not well understood and has never been observed yet you state it as fact. im not frustrated at all, RNA asembly from nothing has never been accomplished, formation of certain elements has never been established, as it would be in after the big bang. i will continue the debate, but you've refuted nothing with your theory. show me macro evolution of species, anywere, anywere.
i will continue the debate but i have school work to attend to so relax bro i'll continue the debate and dont take it so personal man it's a internet argument. if you win i dont care it's not my field in the slightest just an interest.
-
same goes for your posts.
What are you talking about? Unlike you, I provide references to support my posts. You've made several claims so far that I refuted by simply doing a little research.
the formation of a star is not well understood and has never been observed yet you state it as fact.
The formation of stars is well understood.
The Coordinated Molecular Probe Line Extinction Thermal Emission Survey of Star Forming Regions (long name, I know)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/COMPLETE/learn/star_and_planet_formation.html
Also, the birth of a star has been observed by scientists.
ABC Science Online
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s249630.htm
RNA asembly from nothing has never been accomplished
You're correct. However, RNA assembly from molecules has been accomplished. ;)
formation of certain elements has never been established, as it would be in after the big bang.
"observations in red giants of one kind of nucleus—99technetium—provides direct evidence that heavy-element formation really does occur in stars today."
Wright Center for Science Education
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_stel_6.html
i will continue the debate, but you've refuted nothing with your theory. show me macro evolution of species, anywere, anywere.
Evolution doesn't seek to disprove other theories like creationism does. So there's nothing for me to refute except ignorant comments from anti-evolutionists. In that sense, I've managed to successfully defend evolution against your arguments.
i will continue the debate but i have school work to attend to so relax bro i'll continue the debate and dont take it so personal man it's a internet argument. if you win i dont care it's not my field in the slightest just an interest.
I assure you that I'm not taking anything personal. On the contrary, I find this discussion rewarding for me. I have learned some new things and I also feel good about educating others.
-
you haven't taught me anything, i had a big reply made but erased it by mistake so here is the short hand version. you have provided umpteen links for me to read and i will not read all those links, why dont you paraphrase it in your own words and use your own logic. i wont sit down and have a google fight with you as you seem to like providing links which can be refuted with a simple google. however, the point is to make your own point.
-
haha you've been refuted by google, guess im learning to. stars have never been observed in formation this is a fallacy on your part, they think they have observed stars but are not sure. simple wording shifts meaning.
http://www.ldolphin.org/stars.html
it has been impossible to date to view the cloud as it collapses through this range of densities. Consequently stars cannot be observed as they form.
-
you haven't taught me anything.
Sure. ;D
you have provided umpteen links for me to read and i will not read all those links, why dont you paraphrase it in your own words and use your own logic. i wont sit down and have a google fight with you as you seem to like providing links which can be refuted with a simple google. however, the point is to make your own point.
I have paraphrased what I read. My links only serve for reference so you don't think I'm making shit up. I do not expect you to read them. However, they are helpful tools if you truly wish to learn more.
-
haha you've been refuted by google, guess im learning to. stars have never been observed in formation this is a fallacy on your part, they think they have observed stars but are not sure. simple wording shifts meaning.
http://www.ldolphin.org/stars.html
it has been impossible to date to view the cloud as it collapses through this range of densities. Consequently stars cannot be observed as they form.
Do you even bother to check your sources? I stopped reading your link as soon as I read this.
"Stars cannot form naturally. They must be created directly by God."
-
haha, that is the point of the argument, that formation of stars cannot occur under normal means like you state. it does have some good information however, and star formation hasn't been observed like gravity has been as would be indicated by your link. again they think they have viewed star formation.
to be honest i have learned some stuff from your posts. you do seem to know alot about evolution. but that isn't my concern per se, more so cosmology if you will.
-
There is no evidence that proves star formation does not occur from collapsing clouds of interstellar hydrogen. The overall process takes millions of years. Just b/c no one has directly witnessed the birth of a star doesn't mean star formation theory is wrong. Astrophysicist use wavelength measurements to observe star formation during its various stages. In fact, these steps in the process were predicted before we developed the technology to observe them.