|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 12, 2006 11:59:18 GMT -5
In the afterglow of the syllogism debate, which proved nothing more than people’s aptitude for logic under false pretenses, and fictional environments, I thought we could approach this subject with a little more civility and thinking rather than bickering over minute details. Since logic is not my prime area of study (yet) I thought we could look a little at science.
Let us look at the subject of origins. I have probably heard every argument from an alien race sending amino acids to earth on a comet, to the lightning bolt through the primordial ooze pit that somehow produced proteins, To the big bang theory. But let me quickly address each of the proposed theories and then we can discuss.
The Ooze Pit - This theory states that there was a pit of what has been called pre-biotic soup, which held the components within to stimulate the generation of proteins when electricity was pulsed through it.
This theory faces a whole barrage of problems right from the starting gun.
The atmosphere needed to be conducive in order for chemicals to react in the proper way under the stimuli of electricity. Stanley Miller proposed that the atmosphere was made of methane, ammonia, and water vapor. However NASA now knows that the early earth atmosphere contained carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. If you do the same experiment with the true atmospheric conditions you don't get amino acids, you get embalming fluid.
This in and of itself discounts any further study of this ludicrous theory. Aside from that feeble attempt at proving evolution, the experiment still does not solve the problem of the origin of the pre-biotic soup, or the earth, or the space for the earth. So, this theory is scrapped.
The seeding of earth by an alien race – It has been well said that the day these ‘great’ scientific minds are forced to digress to the speculation of aliens, it may be time to rethink chemical evolution as it coincides biological macro-evolution.
The big bang – I have dealt with this elsewhere and am under the impression that the unbelievers do not believe it anyhow.
So with these theories out of the way, I propose to you the argument of irreducible complexity against the theory of evolution.
The claim of evolution is that complex systems, organisms, and life can be formed over gradual process, by natural selection, and without any intelligence at all. To this I say they cannot, and here is why.
To use the classic example of the mousetrap proposed by Michael Behe, I will attempt to dismantle evolution once and for all.
A mousetrap is what can be called an irreducibly complex system. What that means is that if you take away one part of the machine, it will no longer function. If you take away the spring, it will not snap shut. If you take away the trigger it cannot be set off to trap the mouse. Nothing can be taken away from the mousetrap.
Applying the principle to biochemistry, especially Darwin’s biggest fear, the living cell, we can see once and for all the falsity of evolution. The cilia are a prime example of an irreducibly complex organism. They consist 18 microtubules, These are connected by nexin linkers and each has a protein called a dynein which acts as a motor. The dynein runs the tubules in a motion to propel the cell through liquid. These three parts are necessary for the system to rightly function. Without one part of the system none of it will work. Three things are essential for the cell to function, microtubules, nexin linkers and the dynein (motor protein).
To say that this system can be conceived by gradual and continuos modification and evolutionary process is absurd. The main tenet of evolutionary natural selection is that if it doesn’t work, it dies, or becomes obsolete and no longer exists and gets replaced. This system, as well as others that are irreducibly complex, cannot be made through Darwinian gradualism because all the necessary parts are needed for its function. If you don't have all three, the system doesn’t work and under the evolutionary theory would have died.
So all the parts needed to be present right at the beginning for the system to stay in existence. Explain how exactly evolution can create such a system.
Let the debates begin.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Jun 12, 2006 12:09:10 GMT -5
I can't even begin to disagree (I'm almost bad in science as I am in math, but then miracles do happen). But I'm stubborn and truly think there is still hope for YOU the true unbeliever.
If you're using science, then while you're at it, use science to PROVE creationism. Show me how science proves that God snaps his fingers and we're here.
Also, if you're looking for the "civility" I think you are, go to the Doc. and Theology section to agree yours arses off.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 12, 2006 13:43:03 GMT -5
You still do not understand evolution. Please research and read before posting. I will not address anything here until you read up. I want a full explanation, in your own words, on how evolution works, and how it is still working.
I didn't say how you think evolution works. I said how it does work. Keep that in mind. Get to your homework, evan. I read matthew 7 (and found lots and lots of goodies wrong with it), so you read evolution.
Please note!!! Mein Kampf does not address evolution....
Edit: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to have the quote in there.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 12, 2006 13:52:52 GMT -5
You quoted me, and then told me I am ingonrant of evolution, but the quote you use has nothing to do with evolution. I didnt think you would have much to say except I am just a stupid Christian, I half expected that. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 12, 2006 16:28:14 GMT -5
Evan, before you argue about science, you need to understand how science works. Read about Karl Popper's book _Conjectures and Refutations_. There is probably an article about it on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the web. Karl Popper believed, and most scientists agree, that the crucial factor which distinguishes real science from pseudoscience is refutablity. A classic example is Sigmond Freud's theory of the mind and Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's theory of relativity (i.e. E = mC^2) is real science because certain evidence would prove relativity wrong; if the atomic bomb doesn't work then relativity is not true. Freud's theory of the mind (i.e. the id, ego and superego) is not science, because no evidence could possibly refute it. Any thought you have or any behaviour you display can be described in terms of the id, ego and superego. This is why scientists consider Freud's theory of the mind pseudoscience. Unfortunately, irreducible complexity meets this criteria of pseudoscience. Even as science advances and explains more things, there will always be something that remains unexplained which will qualify as "irreducibly complex".
Furthermore, you appear to misunderstand what irreducible complexity actually means. Irreducible complexity does not mean that an object or an organism will not work if you remove one critical part. Irreducible complexity really means that an object or organism is more than the sum of its assembled parts. Irreducible complexity is the hallmark of holistic thought, while most scientists subscribe, at least in part, to a reductionist view. For example, the holistic school in ecology might say that an ecosystem is more than the sum of its assembled parts. I.e. if you assemble together the plants, animals and resources of a particular ecosystem in a zoo, the ecosystem will never survive or become as productive as the wild ecosystem. Holistic science was much more popular before Karl Popper released _Conjectures and Refutations_, but it is largely ignored now. The common complaints are that irreducible complexity cannot be tested or refuted, and it largely seems to be a cop out for phenomena we cannot explain. According to your description, cillia are not irreducibly complex. The evolution or origins of cillia can be explained by neofunctionalization and subneofunctionalization (i.e. the components of cilia may have previously served other purposes in the cell before they developed their roles in cell motility).
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jun 12, 2006 18:28:19 GMT -5
The evolution or origins of cillia can be explained by neofunctionalization and subneofunctionalization (i.e. the components of cilia may have previously served other purposes in the cell before they developed their roles in cell motility).
"May have", "probably did", "we think it is possible", "could have", "over billions or was it millions of years"......ad nauseum
Yep, sounds like pretty SCIENTIFIC terminology to me.
In the beginning God....
In the beginning Dirt...
I know which one I would rather believe.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 12, 2006 18:57:24 GMT -5
logic is an element of science, evan. also, we all make assumptions and generalizations, but i would have to nominate you the king of speaking out your bum. i 'believe' in none of those theories, and none of them are even close to accurately describing it. 'non-believers' (not unbelievers) do not hold to your arguments, in other words, not all atheists are evolutionists and not all christians are creationists.
you are simply stating what you think, and what you think of these 'theories.' you are speaking more opinion than fact which completely negates your words. this is why no one will ever agree with you.
your ignorance, arrogance, and intolerance of everything under the sun, except your version of god, is enough for me to never desire to address you again.
i suggest that if you ever want to successfully witness to people that you drop the elitist attitude and put your head in a book, because you know next to nothing...about, well, anything.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jun 12, 2006 20:01:31 GMT -5
not all christians are creationists.
More accurately:
"Professing" 'Christians' are not all creationists.
"Possessing" Christians are all creationists.
Why, because a "possessing" Christian believes the Word of God.
Whereas, a "professing" 'christian' does not.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Jun 12, 2006 21:47:40 GMT -5
But if you're possesed that means you're controlled against yer will ... again, another reason why I am indeed afraid of your God. Satan gives me the heebie jeebies!!
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 12, 2006 23:22:06 GMT -5
The evolution or origins of cillia can be explained by neofunctionalization and subneofunctionalization (i.e. the components of cilia may have previously served other purposes in the cell before they developed their roles in cell motility)."May have", "probably did", "we think it is possible", "could have", "over billions or was it millions of years"......ad nauseum Yep, sounds like pretty SCIENTIFIC terminology to me. In the beginning God.... In the beginning Dirt... I know which one I would rather believe. You are a fool. Good science is always tempered with the knowledge that new information may refute today's best theories. Real science is dynamic, often undergoing massive paradigm shifts followed by intense development of those revolutionary ideas. Read Kuhn's _Structure of Scientific Revolutions_.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 13, 2006 0:39:53 GMT -5
Thats exactly the point I'm trying to drive in to them!x xD
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jun 13, 2006 1:10:28 GMT -5
"The fool hath said in his heart there is no God..."
Just repeating what OUR Creator said, so don't get mad at me!
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jun 13, 2006 1:19:49 GMT -5
Good science is always tempered with the knowledge that new information may refute today's best theorie
Hydrochloric acid +sodium carbonate=NaCl + carbon dioxide +water
Always, sometimes, perhaps, maybe, we don't know-the 'theory' maybe tempered by new information and may therefore be refuted in the future.
So are you admitting that the theory of evolution maybe refuted one day?
Hey, I've got news for you it already has.
"In the beginning God..." GENESIS ONE
|
|
|
Post by newsong on Jun 13, 2006 5:52:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 13, 2006 8:18:00 GMT -5
Good science is always tempered with the knowledge that new information may refute today's best theoriesHydrochloric acid +sodium carbonate=NaCl + carbon dioxide +water Always, sometimes, perhaps, maybe, we don't know- the 'theory' maybe tempered by new information and may therefore be refuted in the future.
So are you admitting that the theory of evolution maybe refuted one day?Hey, I've got news for you it already has. "In the beginning God..." GENESIS ONE[italics added for emphasis] You are just further demonstrating your ignorance about science. You have committed the informal fallacy of equivocation by abusing the lay and scientific uses of the word theory. Bad form. I notice you're very quiet concerning Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Read much? Care to explain how the scientific method works? Care to demonstrate how 'creation science' or 'intelligent design' meets the criteria for Popperian refutability? Probably not.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 13, 2006 8:23:22 GMT -5
Well, there you have it, a sarcastic t-shirt ... that just proves everything. And here I've spent the past decade studying biology, philosophy, statistics and mathematics ... but nobody told me y'all had T-SHIRTS!!!
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 13, 2006 11:00:34 GMT -5
christian capitalism. hah.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 13, 2006 11:02:03 GMT -5
"The fool hath said in his heart there is no God..." Just repeating what OUR Creator said, so don't get mad at me! wow. talk about child-like...haha.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Jun 13, 2006 12:44:11 GMT -5
Sweatie, ANYONE can put their argument on a shirt. Doesn't make it right.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 13, 2006 15:53:47 GMT -5
The point is this - You cannot get the cillia, in its finished form, by gradualism. It doesnt matter if you can use the parts for other things, we are talking about the cillia. Take the mousetrap, it doesnt matter if you can use the wooden bottom for a paperweight because we arent talking about paperwights, but mousetraps. In the same way it doesnt matter if parts similar to the cillias parts are present elsewhere because the fact remains, you cannot get a cillia by slight modifications over a extremely long period of time. All the parts needed to be present at the same time in jsut the right order for the cillia to function and for the cillia to stay in existence.
You misunderstand irreducible complexity.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 13, 2006 18:16:42 GMT -5
The point is this - You cannot get the cillia, in its finished form, by gradualism. It doesnt matter if you can use the parts for other things, we are talking about the cillia. Take the mousetrap, it doesnt matter if you can use the wooden bottom for a paperweight because we arent talking about paperwights, but mousetraps. In the same way it doesnt matter if parts similar to the cillias parts are present elsewhere because the fact remains, you cannot get a cillia by slight modifications over a extremely long period of time. All the parts needed to be present at the same time in jsut the right order for the cillia to function and for the cillia to stay in existence. You misunderstand irreducible complexity. No, I understand that you are accurately repeating Michael Behe's definition of irreducible complexity and his examples using the mousetrap and cilia. What I am saying is that you, and Behe, are describing the idea incorrectly. Behe's definition of irreducible complexity is both a malapropism and it ignores the historical use of the concept in holistic science. Behe's definition of "irreducible complexity" is a malapropism. It is a misuse of language, because the concept of a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex ... it is actually reducibly simple. Look at a mousetrap. A mousetrap can be disassembled into its component parts and its function is still readily understood from those component parts. A mousetrap consists of a wooden base, a tensioned spring, a latch, a trigger plate, an aperature and a bait. Its operation is easily understood from those component parts: mouse is lured by the bait ... mouse disturbs the trigger plate, releasing the latch and hence the tensioned spring snaps the aperature against the wooden base immobilizing or killing the mouse. The mousetrap is not really even complex, but even if you consider the mousetrap to be complex it is not irreducibly complex. If something is irreducibly complex, then its behavior cannot be explained simply by examining its component parts. Sure the mousetrap no longer works if you remove one component, but that's because if you remove one component you no longer have a mousetrap. Behe is erroneously defining systems as "irreducibly complex" because they do not have redundancy. It's highly illogical. Behe's definition also ignores the scientific history of holistic thought, which really drives the principle of irreducible complexity. The contribution of holistic thought is the idea of emergent properties. Emergent properties are properties which cannot be enumerated among a list of parts; they exist only as an interaction between two or more components. From the holistic perspective, a song might be considered irreducibly complex because it has emergent properties. E.g. You can play one melody on a guitar and a second melody on a bass ... consider them separately and you have two melodies ... consider them simultaneously and you have two melodies plus harmony. Consider those two melodies together with a drum beat and you have two melodies, one beat, harmony and the funk. These are emergent properties. A song is irreducibly complex because it is more than the sum of its component parts. The pleasing nature of a song cannot be understood by examining its component parts alone ... the song must be examined as a whole to be understood. Holistic science and irreducible complexity are used to describe unexplainable phenomena, like the behaviour of ecosystems, the processes of the mind, etc. Irreducible complexity does not describe the operation of a mousetrap. And you certainly can produce cilia by "gradualism". The basic components of cilia are microtubules, centrioles and cell membrane, which all serve other purposes in the cell and exist redundantly. Specifically, microtubules and centrioles are involved in migration of chromosomes during cell replication. One random mutation might cause a group of microtubules to bundle together, another might lead to the the specific creation of dynein motor proteins from other motor proteins leading to cilia and flagella as we see them today. Behe isn't even a biologist. He's a biochemist. His theories are generated only through biased literature search and speculation. He does not have research equipment, funding or students to perform his own research on the structure of cilia, flagella or other cellular structures. He is simply using his Ph.D. in the peripheral field of biochemistry to create the appearence of some authority on biological evolution. Behe has all the biological and scientific authority of Kent Hovind ... which is to say he has none.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jun 13, 2006 18:58:20 GMT -5
C'mon larryflint,
Respond to my post:
So are you admitting that the theory of evolution maybe refuted one day?
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 13, 2006 23:53:52 GMT -5
C'mon larryflint, Respond to my post: So are you admitting that the theory of evolution maybe refuted one day?I certainly didn't avoid that question, I just didn't see where you asked it. Where exactly was it posted? No matter. [edit: OK, I looked back at my earlier responses, and you did ask this question earlier in the thread. I even copied the question when I quoted you, but I never addressed that specific question. I apologize. At the time I believed your misunderstanding of science was more important than addressing this particular question. My reply follows.] Short answer: Yes, but probably not. Explanation: Like Einstein's theory of relativity, biological evolution is refutable. If there were no random mutations, evolution would be refuted. If phenotypes were not heritible, evolution would be refuted. If there were no differential survival and reproduction among types, evolution would be refuted. The bad news for you, doc, is that all the premises of evolution hold true. These facts about the natural world (i.e. that living things experience random mutations, that phenotypes are inherited and that we observe differential survival and reproduction among types) imply that evolution is unlikely to be refuted. It's really hard to refute a theory when its premises hold true. Still, I will hold to my word. Science is dynamic and all science is theory. It is always possible that new data could over turn any theory, so we could someday refute the theory of gravity, the theory of acid/base reactions and even the theory of evolution. Personally, I find that Christians tend to get hung up on the natural history of evolution and the anthropomorphication of evolutionary change. Instead of examining the actual mechanism of evolution, Christians tend to get hung up natural history. They are somehow bothered by the notion that men and apes share a common ancestor. They feel compelled to see flow charts filled with intermediate types. They want to hear an oral history of evolution, rather than understand the underlying mechanism. Maybe this is because our primary and secondary schools typically teach history of science rather than delve into the more abstract practice and theory of science. The other hang up is anthropomorphizing evolution. Christians, and lay people in general, want to see evolution as a purposeful force. They want to find an underlying meaning behind evolution. They want to see that evolution has a goal and that as living things we are headed to bigger and better things. Unfortunately, that isn't necessarily true. Evolution is directionless. For the most part, people are unwilling to see evolution for what it really is: a consequence. Evolution isn't a mystical force. It doesn't have a purpose and it is not, in itself, the purpose of life on earth. Evolution is just a consequence of the imperfect replication of nucleic acids and the differing survival or reproduction of inheritible types. Now, I know you may have popped a b0ner because I admitted that evolution could be refuted. Here's the cold shower. Neither creation nor intelligent design will EVER replace evolution as the scientific explanation for biological diversity. Intelligent design is not science and it never will be. It does not meet the criteria for Popperian falsifiability. No evidence could ever prove creation wrong, and that's a bad thing. Think about it. In the world we see, all living things are made up of the same building blocks: proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, etc. Today, a creationist could look at that and say, "Wow, look at how orderly the world is ... this is clearly evidence that living things had an intelligent designer!". But suppose living things were not made of the same components. Suppose humans were made of pure protein, while trees were made of lipids and bunny rabbits were made of hydrocarbons, etc. Would that refute creation? No. You would just say, "Wow, look how each thing was created in its own special way ... this is clearly evidence that living things had an intelligent designer!". Realize that I'm not telling you to stop believing in creation. I'm just asking you to stop trying to call it science. No one says you need to accept the scientific explanation for biological diversity, provided you don't intend to work as an academic biologist. If you want to believe that your invisible dad in the sky created life on earth, that's cool with me. Ultimately, science can't answer the deeper metaphysical questions we all want to answer, like: why are we here? what happens after we die? where did reality come from? etc. So, if theological creation makes you feel stronger in your faith, then hop on that thang and gallup back to the middle ages for all I care. No ever said you need to use, understand or agree with biology to be a good person or get into heaven. Just realize that science and theology have very little at conflict, and rather than condemn science when it does clash with theology, you should embrace those conflicts as an opportunity to better examine the epistomological roots of these questions. Which questions are better addressed with scientific reasoning and which are better addressed with theological reasoning. If these conflicts shake your faith, then perhaps its not science that's at fault.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 14, 2006 6:37:55 GMT -5
A couple of quick thoughts about Behe's erroneous definition of "irreducible complexity". You can remove parts from a mousetrap and still have it function as a mousetrap. Two examples: First, a mousetrap does not require a base. If you think about it, a beartrap is very similar in design to a traditional mousetrap except it does not have a base ... it has a hinged "jaw" or aperature. Design a mouse-sized bear trap, and you have essentially removed a component from the traditional mousetrap while retaining its function. Second, consider a glue trap. Glue traps are used to catch mice and rodents all the time. They have only two parts, a housing and an adhesive, yet technically they are mousetraps and they have much fewer parts than the typical mousetrap as described by Behe.
Another thought. Suppose Behe's definition is correct. Suppose an item is irreducibly complex if and if it cannot function when you remove any component. Then by Behe's definition, human beings are not irreducibly complex. After all, you can remove tons of body parts from a human being without destroying life or, in most cases, function. Every human loses hair and nails. At some point, most of us lose teeth. We can function perfectly without our appendix or our tonsils. We can survive and function with only one functioning kidney. We can survive and adapt to function after losing fingers, toes, hands, feet, arms, legs, eyes, etc. So, technically, human beings are not irreducibly complex. Some of our organs and cellular organelles are irreducibly complex, but complete humans are not. So, does that imply that human beings do not require a designer? Did got design a bucket of parts and let Satan finish the job with his "evolution"?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 14, 2006 10:34:01 GMT -5
I am finished with this. Your blood is clear from my hands. It is just to hard to debate with someone that knows everything.
Show me how evolution is science? You are voluntarily blinded. YOu will go to hell because you deserve it. So if our eyes meet on judgement day, you cannot say I didnt warn you. So I tell you lovingly, go to hell with the rest of psuedo-intellectuals, evolutionists, and wicked sinners.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 14, 2006 13:30:27 GMT -5
Show me how it is not science.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 14, 2006 14:00:16 GMT -5
Theory! A falsifiable theory that has been proven false over and over again and yet ignorant followers of Darwin want so bad to to keep their filthy stinking sin they believe it.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 14, 2006 15:47:46 GMT -5
I am finished with this. Your blood is clear from my hands. your hands are never clean, my little fundie friend. also, to the other christians posting on this thread, even if 'evolution' is refuted one day does not mean that creationism is the answer--or will take its place.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 14, 2006 17:19:05 GMT -5
Evan, are you being facetious when you call me a know-it-all or are you really angry at me for being knowledgeble on this subject? You are a young guy. You are probably in college. You have plenty of time to catch up with me, if you're willing to step outside of your little box. Again, I will point out that scientific theories like evolution must be refutable. That does not mean that evolution has ever been refuted. The only things which would refute evolution would be if you could refute its premises or it's conclusions. No one, Christian or otherwise, has been able to this yet. I will also remind you that, in science, a theory is a proposed mechanism which explains some natural phenomenon and the body of evidence which supports that proposed mechanism. A scientific theory is different from our colloquial use of the word theory (e.g. I have a theory about who ate the last cookie). Don't worry about my blood or my potential blindness. I assure you that my eyes are open. Whether you believe me or not, I actually understand your worldview. I just don't follow it or agree with it. Take a few deep breaths. Calm down. Start reading. If you're ever going to be a good little fisherman, you've got to develop more patience. Perhaps you should read Robert Pirsig's _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence_. It provides a decent introduction into the scientific method and, more importantly, it explores the gulf between analytical and intuitive thinking. It also contains some elements of Eastern (re: Buddhist) philosophy. It's a good read and it will kill two birds with one stone: it gives you insight into the minds of both scientific and buddhist infidels. . In my last posts I've made an effort to be more polite and less condenscending (or at the very least less vulgar). You can choose to throw your hands up and run away, or you can stick it out and learn something.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 14, 2006 23:38:45 GMT -5
...the problem with ALL of the fundies on this board is that they speak on topics they know nothing about, or what they do know comes from a christian apologist. oi.
|
|