IC does not support ID (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

BVZ -> IC does not support ID (1/30/2008 12:20:55 AM)

IN another thread, we started discussing ID (Intelligent Design), and its relationship with IC (Irreducibly Complex) systems.

The argument from the ID camp goes something like this:

1) IC systems exist.
2) It is impossible for IC systems to evolve.
3) The only alternative is that IC systems are designed by an intelligent agent.

This argument has many problems, but I want to focus on one.

2) is false, since IC systems CAN evolve.

Miller has shown that the bacterial flagellum CAN evolve.
(http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html)

Now the sticking point seems to be that he did not PROVE that the flagellum evolved EXACTLY the way he describes.

Of course, he does not have to, since all he has to do is show that is is POSSIBLE.

Incredibly, this simple point is not easy to get across, possibly because of Morton's demon infestation.

What do you guys think?



drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (1/30/2008 8:43:45 AM)

quote:

Miller has shown that the bacterial flagellum CAN evolve.
Reference please, so I can satisfy myself that you've changed the definition of "CAN evolve" to suit your present needs!



DanJames -> RE: IC does not support ID (1/30/2008 10:23:55 AM)

Dr. Mark, I'm going to be taking molecular cell biology before too long, but even now I'm pretty familiar with the way that the cell works and how it communicates within itself though enzymes that are produced (I suppose) as a result of functions that take place within the cell. Are you familiar with this process? And if so could you explain it a bit and relate it to how a protozoan might use this process to build a flagellum? My understanding is that the assembly instructions are also pretty complex and only adds to the problem of understanding how biological systems are marvels of engineering.



BVZ -> RE: IC does not support ID (1/31/2008 4:14:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Miller has shown that the bacterial flagellum CAN evolve.
Reference please, so I can satisfy myself that you've changed the definition of "CAN evolve" to suit your present needs!


You could also just ask for the reference without accusing me of dishonesty.

Anyway, here it is:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

(I will also edit it into the OP.)



drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (1/31/2008 8:37:49 AM)

quote:

Are you familiar with this process?
My "formal training" in molecular biology was a long time ago, in a land far away [;)]. Although I've not kept up with the field as a whole, I do know enough of the molecular basis of modern immunology to realize that multiple feedback loops, stereo-specific receptors, and intermediary activation complexes are all irreducibly complex structures which could never have evolved by Darwinian evolution. You and I know the only Alternative [:)].

quote:

You could also just ask for the reference without accusing me of dishonesty.
You're not dishonest, BVZ - I believe you believe you are correct. Unfortunately, you (and Kenneth Miller) are misinformed, misguided and misplaced in this argument:

Miller’s mangled arguments



BVZ -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/4/2008 2:57:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Are you familiar with this process?
My "formal training" in molecular biology was a long time ago, in a land far away [;)]. Although I've not kept up with the field as a whole, I do know enough of the molecular basis of modern immunology to realize that multiple feedback loops, stereo-specific receptors, and intermediary activation complexes are all irreducibly complex structures which could never have evolved by Darwinian evolution. You and I know the only Alternative [:)].


You are employing a circular argument here.

It goes something like this: IC systems cannot evolve. Why? Because IC systems cannot evolve.

The article shows that there is at least one way it COULD HAVE evolved. This shows that it is not IMPOSSIBLE TO evolve.

Which is why the IC systems don't support ID theory.

quote:


quote:

You could also just ask for the reference without accusing me of dishonesty.
You're not dishonest, BVZ - I believe you believe you are correct. Unfortunately, you (and Kenneth Miller) are misinformed, misguided and misplaced in this argument:

Miller’s mangled arguments


I can't find anything in the article related to the topic at hand, namely how IC systems don't support ID theory.



jfcbrian -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/4/2008 6:10:15 AM)

I think that the bigger challenge for evolution is not to show how one thing could have evolved but how this happened time and time again through out all of history. We have they eye which requires several systems that are necessary to work properly and this is only one example. Now you want us to believe that systems in our body started to work together by pure chance.

I have to say that the odds are not in your favor.

Just think about how many complex systems are needed for something as simple as walking upright. Incredible to believe that this was all a accident or product of pure chance.



BVZ -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/4/2008 7:50:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

I think that the bigger challenge for evolution is not to show how one thing could have evolved but how this happened time and time again through out all of history. We have they eye which requires several systems that are necessary to work properly and this is only one example. Now you want us to believe that systems in our body started to work together by pure chance.


If I understand your question correctly, you are asking how it is possible for an IC system to evolve. You don't think that they can evolve, since they need several parts to start functioning at once. You reason that the odds of this happening are too small.

Science agrees with you. Statistically speaking, the parts of an IC system (however you define them) cannot start working together at once. The odds are against it.

Even the first draft of the theory created by Darwin realized this. But the theory of evolution does not say that is how populations evolve. Every change is a small one.

The trick with the evolution of IC systems is the following: You can take a NON IC system, and remove parts until only the bare bones that are 100% essential remain. THEN you are left with an IC system. The NON IC system does not need all the parts present. You can have multiple systems doing the same thing. The most energy efficient one takes over, and the rest are selected against until they become vestigial or they disappear completely.

The point is that a non IC system CAN evolve. And since an IC system can be created from a non IC one by removing the non essential parts, an IC system is evolveable.

quote:


I have to say that the odds are not in your favor.

Just think about how many complex systems are needed for something as simple as walking upright. Incredible to believe that this was all a accident or product of pure chance.


Evolution is capable of producing complex systems. Complexity is not a problem for the theory of evolution.

If your goal is to prove that something has been designed, I suggest you show that it could not have evolved. I don't know of any biological system that could not have evolved.

IC systems are a stab in this direction, but ultimately it fails for reasons described in the OP. basically, IC systems are evolvable. Using examples of things that can evolve, and trying to use it as examples of things that cannot will fail for obvious reasons.

It's like using red objects to prove the non existence of red objects.



drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/4/2008 12:04:11 PM)

quote:

Even the first draft of the theory created by Darwin realized this. But the theory of evolution does not say that is how populations evolve. Every change is a small one.
You are employing a circular argument here.

It goes something like this: Every change is a small one. Why? Because evolutionary theory requires zillions of years of small changes.



BVZ -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/5/2008 12:34:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Even the first draft of the theory created by Darwin realized this. But the theory of evolution does not say that is how populations evolve. Every change is a small one.
You are employing a circular argument here.

It goes something like this: Every change is a small one. Why? Because evolutionary theory requires zillions of years of small changes.


'Every change is a small one' is part of the hypothesis. This hypothesis was then elevated to scientific theory status because of its success and predictive power.

Anyway, you are moving off topic. And your argument is still circular.

Now, can you give me an example of something that cannot evolve?



drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/5/2008 8:38:21 AM)

quote:

'Every change is a small one' is part of the hypothesis.
No, it's one of the preconceived assumptions required for circular reasoning to support zillions of years in evolutionary theory.

quote:

Now, can you give me an example of something that cannot evolve?
Jesus Christ - Hebrews 13:8.



Real_Solitude -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/5/2008 11:35:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

'Every change is a small one' is part of the hypothesis.
No, it's one of the preconceived assumptions required for circular reasoning to support zillions of years in evolutionary theory.

I might point out that "hypothesis" means, for lack of a better word, "Guess." A theory is what happens when that guess works, and is corroborated by evidence. I don't see how 'every change is small' presents any sort of barrier to the TOE, nor sets it up to become circular reasoning. A hypothesis is an explanation for a fact. The fact is that we only see small changes happen (and persist).


quote:

Now, can you give me an example of something that cannot evolve?
Jesus Christ - Hebrews 13:8.
I believe he meant, "Something that cannot evolve, is proven to exist/have existed, and we know enough about biologically to debate." Of course, most of it was unspoken, but can be assumed since we're speaking scientifically.
Just as in I can't disprove that pixies could have evolved, simply because we have no documentation of them, and therefore no details on their biology (or lack of). You're smart, drmark, please act like it.



BVZ -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/6/2008 12:32:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

'Every change is a small one' is part of the hypothesis.
No, it's one of the preconceived assumptions required for circular reasoning to support zillions of years in evolutionary theory.


You don't know how science works. Luckily, this is a curable condition. Remember, you don't have to AGREE with something, to UNDERSTAND something.

You are right that BASICALLY an hypothesis is a guess. But if you take into consideration how expensive research is, it does not make sense to do research on ideas that cannot be shown to be feasible.

So, technically, you COULD do research on something that is only a guess, but you won't get funding very easily. You have to show that your hypothesis is feasible, and the only way to do this is by referencing past research, or evidence derived from reality.

But lets assume for the sake of the argument that the theory of evolution when it was young was nothing more than an uneducated guess, without any evidence to support it.

Now, even while this assumption is in place, it turned out that the predictions made by the ToE all turned out to be accurate. So even assuming that the ToE is a guess, it was a pretty damn good one, which turned into a fully fledged scientific theory with evidence to support it included.

quote:


quote:

Now, can you give me an example of something that cannot evolve?
Jesus Christ - Hebrews 13:8.


You know this is a scientific discussion right?



futuredocter37 -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/6/2008 12:50:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

'Every change is a small one' is part of the hypothesis.
No, it's one of the preconceived assumptions required for circular reasoning to support zillions of years in evolutionary theory.


You don't know how science works. Luckily, this is a curable condition. Remember, you don't have to AGREE with something, to UNDERSTAND something.

You are right that BASICALLY an hypothesis is a guess. But if you take into consideration how expensive research is, it does not make sense to do research on ideas that cannot be shown to be feasible.

So, technically, you COULD do research on something that is only a guess, but you won't get funding very easily. You have to show that your hypothesis is feasible, and the only way to do this is by referencing past research, or evidence derived from reality.

But lets assume for the sake of the argument that the theory of evolution when it was young was nothing more than an uneducated guess, without any evidence to support it.
Now, even while this assumption is in place, it turned out that the predictions made by the ToE all turned out to be accurate. So even assuming that the ToE is a guess, it was a pretty damn good one, which turned into a fully fledged scientific theory with evidence to support it included.

quote:


quote:

Now, can you give me an example of something that cannot evolve?
Jesus Christ - Hebrews 13:8.


You know this is a scientific discussion right?


So what your saying is very true for actual science but look at evolution, the evidence for evolution isn't based on research its based on assumptions. I'm assuming that evolution happen therefore I am trying to explain my currrent observations to fit how evolution happened. When you have never really actually proven that evolution actually happened. You may say yes evolution has happend, organisms have mutated, ok organisms have mutated, however but evolution is change in a population to such that the small changes, bring about big changes, its the big changes we have never obseved. Its only the small ones, you say the fossil record, actually the fossil record is no evidence, that tree of life you saw in your Biology textbook, half of the animals that were the "intermediates" never existed.
Another thing was I thinking about calling a theory the backbone of science or Biology, isn't a theory, it isn't scientific to call a theory that, once you start an emotional attachment to an idea then its an ideology not a theory.



drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/6/2008 9:08:09 AM)

quote:

A hypothesis is an explanation for a fact.
You're smart, R_S - please act like it and use the dictionary: hypothesis is a proposed guess expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence. Evolution is not a fact, it's an untestable worldview. The occurence of small changes is not an explanation, it's an observation of nature. Since you admit that "only small changes persist", then you deny macroevolution as well. Thank you for joining the team, R_S!

quote:

Of course, most of it was unspoken, but can be assumed since we're speaking scientifically.
Well, it's nice that you can read (some) minds through electronic media. Is this an inherited or acquired trait? I am not so smart, it seems.

quote:

But if you take into consideration how expensive research is, it does not make sense to do research on ideas that cannot be shown to be feasible.
What's so expensive about irradiating thousands of generations of fruit flies and never once observing the evolution of Drosophila into any new organism?

quote:

You have to show that your hypothesis is feasible, and the only way to do this is by referencing past research, or evidence derived from reality.
I'm all ears, BVZ, please share past research or "evidence derived from reality" that one kind of organism has evolved into another. All I'm seeing are these pitiful conclusions based on preconceived assumptions of godless naturalism.

quote:

You know this is a scientific discussion right?
You do know that God created all who have developed science and all that science is about?



Real_Solitude -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/7/2008 5:31:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

A hypothesis is an explanation for a fact.
You're smart, R_S - please act like it and use the dictionary: hypothesis is a proposed guess expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence. Evolution is not a fact, it's an untestable worldview. The occurence of small changes is not an explanation, it's an observation of nature. Since you admit that "only small changes persist", then you deny macroevolution as well. Thank you for joining the team, R_S!

I didn't say that a hypothesis is a correct explanation for a fact, merely an explanation. (Explanation: a meaning or interpretation). Therefore, a hypothesis is an interpretation of the evidence. Hmm, that's exactly what I said... odd. Perhaps a thesaurus is in order?
Evolution does happen, it has been observed. I is merely the extent to which it occurs that we debate. I say 'we' because most scientists doesn't debate the extent of evolution, it's mostly 'the public' who do the debating. 'Macro'evolution is testable, but would require a bit of a... long term study. If human civilization persists for a few million more years, and we keep a good record, we'll have our observed proof, or lack of.

I said "The fact is that we only see small changes happen (and persist)." This means that we have only directly observed small changes to a specific parent-child happen, and those changes survive. Lots of small changes have led us from wolves to chihuahuas. However, if a change as large as the wolf-chihuahua one were to occur in a single generation, it would almost certainly lead to the child animal's death. Evolution is all about small changes. Large changes do not persist because they change too much, in too chaotic of a manner, for it to be beneficial to the resulting offspring. What the TOE states is that lots of small changes end up becoming large changes. This does hold with the relevant data.

quote:

Of course, most of it was unspoken, but can be assumed since we're speaking scientifically.
Well, it's nice that you can read (some) minds through electronic media. Is this an inherited or acquired trait? I am not so smart, it seems.
You'll notice I used the word "believed" before I made my statement. My belief was not based on absolute knowledge, but context. If you're assuming that this means that I can read minds, I must agree with your final statement.

quote:

You know this is a scientific discussion right?
You do know that God created all who have developed science and all that science is about?
No, that seems to be a little tidbit that passed me by. Please provide proof of your claim, as well as full refutations of any major dissenting opinions on the matter.
Note: "The Bible says so." is considered circular logic, and as such, not proof, unless the Bible can also be shown to be factually correct in all statements.



drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/7/2008 6:10:46 PM)

quote:

Evolution does happen, it has been observed.
Nope, only natural selection and adaptation have been observed. No one, anywhere, at any time, has observed even one fruit fly evolve into a higher, more complex, better equipped superfly. Feel free to post a scientific reference to refute me.

quote:

What the TOE states is that lots of small changes end up becoming large changes. This does hold with the relevant data.
Relevant data - you've got to be kidding! Please show us the thousands of transitional fossils from millions of years of small changes, R_S. THEY DON'T EXIST!

quote:

Note: "The Bible says so." is considered circular logic, and as such, not proof, unless the Bible can also be shown to be factually correct in all statements.
Note: not on this Christian discussion forum. So, show us a "factually incorrrect" statement from the Bible, R_S. Then you'll have your "proof" for a circular argument.



Real_Solitude -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/7/2008 11:06:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Nope, only natural selection and adaptation have been observed. No one, anywhere, at any time, has observed even one fruit fly evolve into a higher, more complex, better equipped superfly. Feel free to post a scientific reference to refute me.

I'll do you one better. I'll post a definition.
Evolution
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Evolution has been observed. The extent of it is what we (on crosswalk) debate.

Furthermore, evolution is never about becoming "higher, more complex, or better equiped", evolution is about a species adapting to its environment, and surviving. If this requires it to become stupider, slower, or less complex, then that is what will happen, or the species will die. Evolution is simply change.

quote:

Relevant data - you've got to be kidding! Please show us the thousands of transitional fossils from millions of years of small changes, R_S. THEY DON'T EXIST!

We don't need a fossil of every animal that ever died to get the overall picture.

quote:

Note: not on this Christian discussion forum. So, show us a "factually incorrrect" statement from the Bible, R_S. Then you'll have your "proof" for a circular argument.


This website gives you quite a number a number of errors. A good one regarding scientific fact is Duteronomy 14:7 "Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you."
Coney, also known as rabbits, do not chew cud. Neither do hares. Fact, no matter how small or insignificant, provided. Please continue.



DanJames -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/8/2008 10:48:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Nope, only natural selection and adaptation have been observed. No one, anywhere, at any time, has observed even one fruit fly evolve into a higher, more complex, better equipped superfly. Feel free to post a scientific reference to refute me.

I'll do you one better. I'll post a definition.
Evolution
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Evolution has been observed. The extent of it is what we (on crosswalk) debate.

Furthermore, evolution is never about becoming "higher, more complex, or better equiped", evolution is about a species adapting to its environment, and surviving. If this requires it to become stupider, slower, or less complex, then that is what will happen, or the species will die. Evolution is simply change.

quote:

Relevant data - you've got to be kidding! Please show us the thousands of transitional fossils from millions of years of small changes, R_S. THEY DON'T EXIST!

We don't need a fossil of every animal that ever died to get the overall picture.

quote:

Note: not on this Christian discussion forum. So, show us a "factually incorrrect" statement from the Bible, R_S. Then you'll have your "proof" for a circular argument.


This website gives you quite a number a number of errors. A good one regarding scientific fact is Duteronomy 14:7 "Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you."
Coney, also known as rabbits, do not chew cud. Neither do hares. Fact, no matter how small or insignificant, provided. Please continue.


I kind of assumed that we were all under the understanding that the Bible was correct on all accounts and that we were just working on the interpretation of the Bible. I agree with Dr. Mark that the Bible is true on all accounts, and in fact I would say that it MUST be true on all accounts. The Bible goes way out of its way to demonstrate that it (and it alone) is divine in origin, not merely human. God stuck his neck way out when he inspired the book of Daniel which gives the history of the middle-east to such a minute detail that some have said that it must have been written after the fact. (though there is no evidence to that end, in fact the language dates to the time that Daniel lived). No other book is like this. We can't even get the weather for the weekend right, yet Daniel practically gives the history of the world ahead of time. This isn't the only example, but it is a major one.

Chewing the cud, as we know it, is regurgitating and re-chewing the food that was already at least partially digested. Rabbits do eat their own pellets, which is a functional similarity to chewing the cud, though in a technical sense, we might say that it isn't actually chewing cud.

EDIT: I have also seen this website that you posted. I'm a bit surprised to have found it posted here. Though I am all for freedom of information, to suggest that it is anything other than a repackaging of the same tired old arguments, is a bit depressing.



drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/8/2008 12:15:42 PM)

Thanks, Dan, I'll let you play along with R_S's "same tired old arguments" for a while!



Real_Solitude -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/9/2008 3:17:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
I kind of assumed that we were all under the understanding that the Bible was correct on all accounts and that we were just working on the interpretation of the Bible. [...] Though I am all for freedom of information, to suggest that it is anything other than a repackaging of the same tired old arguments, is a bit depressing.


I have no familiarity with the dating of the book of Daniel, other than the very brief overview I just got from wikipedia. Said article states that "Almost all scholars conclude a second century dating of the book in its final form."
I have no idea if this statement is true or not, but it seems worth examination before making a judgment either way.

Just because an argument is old, does not mean it is not valid. It doesn't mean that it is valid either, I'll grant you, but it's incorrect to state that the Bible is consistent in all things. There are contradictions contained in the Bible, as well as what can be perceived as factual errors. This bears examination if you're going to base your life around the teaching contained in it.



Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/12/2008 10:36:21 AM)

quote:

I have no familiarity with the dating of the book of Daniel, other than the very brief overview I just got from wikipedia. Said article states that "Almost all scholars conclude a second century dating of the book in its final form."
I have no idea if this statement is true or not, but it seems worth examination before making a judgment either way.

Just because an argument is old, does not mean it is not valid. It doesn't mean that it is valid either, I'll grant you, but it's incorrect to state that the Bible is consistent in all things. There are contradictions contained in the Bible, as well as what can be perceived as factual errors. This bears examination if you're going to base your life around the teaching contained in it.


You are assuming that others have not examined these issues and found answers that satisfy them - in twenty years of examining such issues I have found that in the end such presumed 'contradictions' and inconsistencies' are invariably either the intentional mischaracterizations of skeptics, or the product of misunderstanding either the language or history of the text.



BVZ -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/13/2008 8:36:14 AM)

Can we get back on topic please?

Read the OP again.

IC systems do not support ID, because IC systems are evolvable.

Do you have anything to say about the topic of the thread?

Do you have an example of something that could not have evolved perhaps?



drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/13/2008 8:53:49 AM)

I gave you an example in post #11. Your (lame) excuse was to redefine the word "scientific" to suit your naturalistic religion.

Now, on a cheerier note, I find your conclusion - IC systems do not support ID - does not follow logically from your premise - because IC systems are evolvable. Here's a simple example: my retirement plan is evolvable; in fact, it changes daily with the stock market. However, I spent much time, effort, and money to intelligently design and create it many years ago. Thus, this is one evolvable IC system that supports ID.



Veritas -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/13/2008 9:00:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Here's a simple example: my retirement plan is evolvable; in fact, it changes daily with the stock market. However, I spent much time, effort, and money to intelligently design and create it many years ago. Thus, this is one evolvable IC system that supports ID.

There are so many things wrong with your example that it's hard to decide where to start. Let's see: You have not demonstrated that your retirement plan is irreducibly complex. Your retirement plan is not a biological organism. Retirement plans do not reproduce. There is no mutation...



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI