Irreducible Complexity - Help from Y#5
Offline Currently arguing with a creationist who is studying biology in undergrad. I won't paste the whole thing, but here's the latest.
1 me
Toast,Jul 6 2006, 11:27 AM wrote:Quote:I tell you, I would never allow anyone who believes such things to do surgery on me, unless they were hypocrites and they gave me drugs for the multiple drug-resistant strains of diseases that appear every year.This is the third time I've had to say this. No one is disputing these sorts of changes.
Yet you dispute the bacterial flagellum having evolved from primitive states.
Quote:Quote:Quick question. If, as you have said (refering to the whole Big Bang thing if I recall), you can't have something from nothing, what created the "designer"?This is purely in reference to matter. God is not made of matter.
No evidence for this.
Quote:No, I most definitely do not. However, the fact remains that any co-opting proteins must have demostrable fruntionality in order to discredit the claims of Irreducible Complexity. There is no proof or evidence of this being the case.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
Quote:Please, tell me which came first, the structure or the instructions for creating the structure.Neither, there was no beginning "structure" and no instructions, just blind selection.
Quote:Quote:I would love the IDers to explain why I have to get my wisdom teeth removed next friday, and why I need a new type of antibiotic for this year. Why do we have a tailbone? Why is the human urinary system so damn inefficient?I don't know, maybe you should ask the Designer.
You're avoiding the burden of proof. If the designer wants to be the spokesperson for Creationism then show him to me. The beauty of science means you have to offer answers to such basic questions. ID is not testable or falsifiable.
Quote:Quote:If we do have a creator, he'd fail every engineering class that exists. His design is rather unintelligent.That statement is full of assumption.
[snapback]61696[/snapback]
Why? Unintelligent design is all I would call this "creation". This creator is supposed to be so vastly superior as to design billions upon billions of species. And what's with the disease thing, is he trying to keep us on our toes?
2 reply
Toast,Jul 6 2006, 12:31 PM wrote:
Quote:Yet you dispute the bacterial flagellum having evolved from primitive states.Only because, again, there is no evidence.
Thank you, this article demonstrates my point quite well....
Quote:To summarize, the problems with the first step in the EFM are as follows:* There are good design reasons for building the flagellum around a transport system and attempts to assign historical significance to this are completely unsupported.
* We have the ability to imagine simpler initial states for designed systems where our imagination does not reflect reality. Thus, the mere ability to imagine simpler states is rather meaningless.
* The data suggest that not any transporter is good enough for evolving something like the bacterial flagellum. This is important because the EFM never addresses the origin of the transporter itself. It seems quite plausible that selection pressures for evolving a good transporter would steer the system away from being preadapted to form something like the flagellum (which is why bacterial flagella are monophyletic).HA Especially this one!
* There is no evidence that anything like the type III system predated the flagellum. The type III system itself most likely evolved from a flagellum.
* Because it is known that evolution borrows, rather than invents de novo, proposing the de novo evolution of a type III transport system among bacteria that already had several transport systems in place makes little sense.
* The type III system itself is IC, perhaps with ten IC components. No attempt is made to explain its flagella-independent origin.
* In light of the evolution of the type III system, proposing a type III-to-flagellum evolution appears to violate Dollo's Law.Quote:Neither, there was no beginning "structure" and no instructions, just blind selection.So these two highly complex processes just happened to be selected (not even selected they just....happened) at the exact same time in the exact same place?
Quote:You're avoiding the burden of proof. If the designer wants to be the spokesperson for Creationism then show him to me. The beauty of science means you have to offer answers to such basic questions. ID is not testable or falsifiable.Yes, ID is both. again, like evolution, ID does not concern itself with abiogenesis.
[snapback]61719[/snapback]
3 me
Toast,Jul 6 2006, 12:31 PM wrote:Quote:Yet you dispute the bacterial flagellum having evolved from primitive states.Only because, again, there is no evidence.
But you admit that evolution in microorganisms exists, make up your mind!
Quote:Thank you, this article demonstrates my point quite well....
I pasted the wrong article I was reading. Check the post again.
Quote:Quote:Neither, there was no beginning "structure" and no instructions, just blind selection.So these two highly complex processes just happened to be selected at the exact same time in the exact same place?
What complex processes are you referring to? And yes, does it have high probability? No, that's why this happens over billions of years.
Quote:Quote:You're avoiding the burden of proof. If the designer wants to be the spokesperson for Creationism then show him to me. The beauty of science means you have to offer answers to such basic questions. ID is not testable or falsifiable.Yes, ID is both. again, like evolution, ID does not concern itself with abiogenesis.
[snapback]61719[/snapback]
Show me how it's testable and falsifiable. The question of a creator is not one that can be proven or disproven, that is the very definition of infalsifiability!
The whole friggin argument is an appeal to ignorance!
ID still has to answer these questions.
"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
- Login to post comments
Offline 4 himQuote:But you admit that evolution in microorganisms exists, make up your mind!The fact that evolution occurs in microorganisms does not validate every evolutionary theory regarding microorganisms.
This is true, nothing you can reply here.
Quote:What complex processes are you referring to? And yes, does it have high probability? No, that's why this happens over billions of years.I should have said processes and structures. Anyway, I am referring to the proteins neccessary to create the bacterial flagellum as well as the instructions to assemble said structure. Both must co exist in order for any funtioning structure to be produced, this is indisputable fact.
It isn't an indisputable fact. Thje proof against your argument is creativity that leads to an invention.
Quote:The whole friggin argument is an appeal to ignorance!No, it is proof by contradiction. If we can rule out all natural causes for a given thing, the cause must then be something not natural. (I used the word supernatural previously but have realized that is a poor choice)
You are wrong. The argument can be natural (only yet unknown). What did we do before the theory on magnetism, gravitation or electricity appeared ?
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:But you admit that evolution in microorganisms exists, make up your mind!The fact that evolution occurs in microorganisms does not validate every evolutionary theory regarding microorganisms.
I see what you're saying, the process of non-random selection of random mutations exists. The most skilled evolutionists advocate that organisms become increasingly complex as evolution progresses, there are just a few missing links that creationists jump on. Well I can tell you that the missing links in creationism/ID are much larger, namely assertive evidence for a creator. Science has a track record of eventually answering questions, and while I don't see evolution as perfect (far from it), it's the most promising theory we have for the origin of species. Supernatural hypotheses have the tendency to claim unquestionable answers when falsifiability is the very core of the scientific process.
If they want ID to be a philosophy and taught as such, so be it. But it is NOT science.
Quote:What complex processes are you referring to? And yes, does it have high probability? No, that's why this happens over billions of years.I should have said processes and structures. Anyway, I am referring to the proteins neccessary to create the bacterial flagellum as well as the instructions to assemble said structure. Both must co exist in order for any funtioning structure to be produced, this is indisputable fact.
Simply wrong, death causality can work just as well as defined instructions in the more complex of cases, sometimes better as we've seen in engineering.
Quote:The whole friggin argument is an appeal to ignorance!No, it is proof by contradiction. If we can rule out all natural causes for a given thing, the cause must then be something not natural. (I used the word supernatural previously but have realized that is a poor choice)
It is indeed, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. not natural is also a poor choice, it could be another process, or merely a variation on evolution that we have not yet theorized. What did we do before the theory on magnetism, gravity or electricity appeared? To assume a creator without proper assertive and positive evidence is highly unscientific. But these things are unlikely, because i'm confident that we are on the right track.
And Equilibrium, the first link you posted is an excellent refutation of that talkorigins article.
[snapback]61725[/snapback]
And hundreds more peer-reviewed science journals (outside of the internet - a good place to look) from reputable institutes and people of scientific research refute such essays.
But 60+ such journals never convinced Behe, even though he didn't read a fraction of them :laugh: also admitting that none of his work on the immune system is peer-reviewed. Why should I come to believe that he is a man of evidence? Yes, I know he isn't the entire ID movement, but the Creationists and yourself hold him in such high regard.
I'm not going to start a link-war, and i'm not about to continue arguing the science because neither of us has the credibility to do so.
I would prefer to ask creationists why I have so many transitionary body parts that have no purpose whatsoever - whereas evolution explains them. These are philosophical questions.
"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
- Login to post comments
Offline I think we're pretty much done, he's been referring to DNA all along, which is in the area of abiogenesis :roll:
Fucking red herrings.
In any case, can Y#5 or anyone else with expertise refute the irreducible complexity argument?
"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
- Login to post comments
Offline http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&search=Intelligent%20Design
I'm tired, but if I remember correctly, the complexity thing is dealt with somewhat in this long presentation.
-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.
- Login to post comments
Offline Whew, I just wasted over an hour berating nacker, I'll get on this as soon as I can.
- Login to post comments
Offline Whew, I just wasted over an hour berating nacker, I'll get on this as soon as I can.
LOL no rush 
"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
- Login to post comments
Offline I think my favorite example to refute this 'incredible complexity' and 'perfection of design' argument comes from Dawkins, I believe in 'the blind watchmaker'. In either case it's simply to point out serious imperfections. Like, if you asked an engineer how he'd design an eye, the lens would be in the front and the wiring in back, it's the most efficient way to do it. He would laugh at the notion that anyone with any intelligence would put the wires in front of the lens. Of course, that's exactly how our eye is. It's wired BACKWARDS. That's why we have a blind spot. Perhaps there once were ancestors with eyes wired correctly, but at some point in our evolution, the ones with the eyes wired incorrectly were more likely to survive than the ones with the correctly wired eyes. Therefore we have evolved with incorrect eyes ever since. I'm particularly keen to that one because that's a major ID defense, by showing the complexity of the eye. This one takes out both of those arguments in one fell swoop. BUt of course there are other examples. Like Flounder. They start life as vertical swimming fish. Then, when they reach a certain age their bones and body twist grotesquely with one of their eyes travelling all the way around their head. Why would an intelligent designer make something so blatantly incorrect when there are perfect examples of extremely efficient bottom flat fish. THese are known as rays and are born symmetrically flat. This imperfection is pretty much not reconcileable with a perfect design if you ask me.
- Login to post comments
As you can see, the main part of this is that damn bacterial flagellum.
4 him
The fact that evolution occurs in microorganisms does not validate every evolutionary theory regarding microorganisms.
I should have said processes and structures. Anyway, I am referring to the proteins neccessary to create the bacterial flagellum as well as the instructions to assemble said structure. Both must co exist in order for any funtioning structure to be produced, this is indisputable fact.
No, it is proof by contradiction. If we can rule out all natural causes for a given thing, the cause must then be something not natural. (I used the word supernatural previously but have realized that is a poor choice)
And Equilibrium, the first link you posted is an excellent refutation of that talkorigins article.
"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson