Darwin's Black Box

[24KT]

The way you ignore my text messages through Skype. 

[OzmO]

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.   

[24KT]

If I had known that, ...I might have been tempted to say something naughty. {giggle} 

[Necrosis]

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.

[Necrosis]

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?

[Nordic Superman]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[NeoSeminole]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[NeoSeminole]

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.

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[NeoSeminole]

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

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/

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.

[NeoSeminole]

throwing in the towel already?

[OzmO]

I hope not, it looked like to me like he'd last longer than that.

[Necrosis]

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.

[NeoSeminole]

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!

[OzmO]

He'll need more than luck...........  He'll need an act of GOD to do that.   

[Necrosis]

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.

[NeoSeminole]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[OzmO]

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?

[NeoSeminole]

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!

[NeoSeminole]

Question:  If we didn't evolve from monkeys what did we evolve from?

Humans and monkeys evolved from a primate ancestor.

[OzmO]

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)