Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Intelligent Design is Stupid
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 22

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 12/04/2010 :  02:48:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
No the ID argument is as stated by Kil, that some things we see in biology are looks to the layman like it's irreducibly complex, that is to say...
There, I fixed an error in your text.

Edited to add:
Several examples have been proposed as evidence of Irreducible Complexity. Like the inner ear, bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, and such. All of them have been shot down because after a closer examination, evidence show that they weren't irreducibly complex.

So far, IC has proven to be a number of exercises in Argument from Ignorance: I don't know how the flagellum could have evolved, therefore it has been designed.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/04/2010 02:57:08
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Saudi Arabia
1266 Posts

Posted - 12/04/2010 :  08:44:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
There was no error in my text, I was stating what that the ID side of the argument is.

Edited by - On fire for Christ on 12/04/2010 08:47:55
Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 12/04/2010 :  10:08:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Several examples have been proposed as evidence of Irreducible Complexity. Like the inner ear, bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, and such. All of them have been shot down because after a closer examination, evidence show that they weren't irreducibly complex.
And one could also posulate how something IC could evolve:

1. Insertion sequences are stretches of DNA tht move from one location to another. They consist of a gene (whose product does the actual DNA cutting and re-ligating) that is surrounded on both sides (left and right) by certain DNA sequences (and possibly DNA tertiary structure is important) that the gene product recognises. It would look something like this:

Left sequence-----Gene (called a transposase)------Right sequence

2. Transposons are similar to insertion sequences, the main difference being that they also contain extra genes, such as those for antibiotic resistance.

3. Imagine a situation where two insertion sequences happen to insert themselves around a gene for antibiotic resitance:

Left sequence----Transposase---Right sequence-----Antibiotic---Left sequence---Transposase----Right sequence

4. Imagine a few simple mutations that disable some of the sequences that the transposase recognises:

Left sequence---Transposase---Wight sequence--- Antibiotic----Weft sequence-----Transposase----Right sequence

5. The transposase can't recognise the "wight sequence" or the "weft sequence" but can still recognise "left" and "right".

6. You have something that is irreducibly complex: A left sequence, a transposase, an antibiotic resistance gene and a right sequence.

And lo and behold: Composite transposons look like they were made just that way. For example, Tn10 is flanked by two IS10 sequences and contains genes for, for example, tetracycline.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 12/04/2010 :  10:44:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Mab:
There, I fixed an error in your text.

This feels uncool to me. It's okay to correct what you see as an error by quoting text and replying to it, but changing someone else's text and putting it inside a quote box seems to me to be unnecessarily hostile. I'm not prudish about sarcasm, but as I said, this feels uncool.

Just saying...


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 12/04/2010 :  11:50:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

There was no error in my text, I was stating what that the ID side of the argument is.
Yes you did. As Kil pointed out, my "correction" of what you wrote appeared more hostile than I intended. I apologise for my thoughtlessness.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

skepticalover
New Member

12 Posts

Posted - 12/17/2010 :  00:31:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit skepticalover's Homepage Send skepticalover a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It's amazing people can look around at all the wonders of the world and believe it's all just a freak accident. I'm not even a religious person here.

Nail polish without all the carcinogens - http://www.metapolish.com
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 12/17/2010 :  01:33:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by skepticalover

It's amazing people can look around at all the wonders of the world and believe it's all just a freak accident.
And that would be an example of the logical fallacy called an argument from Incredulity. A corollary to an argument from ignorance.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 12/17/2010 :  08:19:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

Originally posted by skepticalover

It's amazing people can look around at all the wonders of the world and believe it's all just a freak accident.
And that would be an example of the logical fallacy called an argument from Incredulity. A corollary to an argument from ignorance.
And I'd also call "freak accident" a strawman.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 12/17/2010 :  13:52:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Hawks

Originally posted by Kil

Originally posted by skepticalover

It's amazing people can look around at all the wonders of the world and believe it's all just a freak accident.
And that would be an example of the logical fallacy called an argument from Incredulity. A corollary to an argument from ignorance.
And I'd also call "freak accident" a strawman.

Absolutely.
"Freak accident" is definitly a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. Granted that that randon chance has a play in it, but there's so much more to it than chance.
Natural selection weeds out anything that isn't improving the gene-pool from a survivability point of view. To put it more simply: Natural selection focuses chance toward better survivability.
But that's only part of it. Genetic drift is also a factor.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 12/18/2010 :  21:23:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
So far, IC has proven to be a number of exercises in Argument from Ignorance: I don't know how the flagellum could have evolved, therefore it has been designed.


I've never heard anyone answer this glaring problem with ID. Without addressing this, ID is making a ridiculous leap from a lack of understanding to an intelligent designer. This is no more than attributing lightning to Zeus.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

podcat
Skeptic Friend

435 Posts

Posted - 12/19/2010 :  12:31:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send podcat a Private Message  Reply with Quote
That was more like what I was trying to explain. The argument for ID, in my view, is:

I don't understand how certain things in nature came into being.

It couldn't have been by chance.

These things must have been designed and created.

If they were designed and created, these things must have a designer/creator.

Since the predominant religion is Christianity, it is strongly implied that a Christian God is the designer/creator, since who or what else could have been the designer/creator?



“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.

-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics
Go to Top of Page

JerryB
Skeptic Friend

279 Posts

Posted - 12/24/2010 :  10:41:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JerryB a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by podcat

That was more like what I was trying to explain. The argument for ID, in my view, is:

I don't understand how certain things in nature came into being.

It couldn't have been by chance.

These things must have been designed and created.

If they were designed and created, these things must have a designer/creator.

Since the predominant religion is Christianity, it is strongly implied that a Christian God is the designer/creator, since who or what else could have been the designer/creator?





Well, gee. I come in here 6 years later and it is the same guys talking about the same thing.......

Merry Christmas, everyone!

You are fairly close on the first 4 points podcat; but completely missing it via implying the designer to be the Christian god.

Many IDists are Jewish or Muslim. Also, a great many are agnostics and atheists such as the Panspermians who believe that life on earth was seeded via comets or astronauts.

And did you know you can be an atheist and still be an IDist without espousing Panspermia? All one must do is understand some quantum mechanics.

I once wrote a paper on this entitled QUANTUM MECHANICS IN METAPHYSICS: DISCOVERING A GOD OF ENERGY THROUGH SCIENCE AND MATH

http://www.ozarkfresh.com/quantummechanicsinmetaphysics.html

You guys read that and ask questions, if you have them.
Go to Top of Page

JerryB
Skeptic Friend

279 Posts

Posted - 12/24/2010 :  12:01:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JerryB a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
So far, IC has proven to be a number of exercises in Argument from Ignorance: I don't know how the flagellum could have evolved, therefore it has been designed.


I've never heard anyone answer this glaring problem with ID. Without addressing this, ID is making a ridiculous leap from a lack of understanding to an intelligent designer. This is no more than attributing lightning to Zeus.


I have no trouble addressing this. But first let me correct the original question: It's not that I don't understand how the flagellum could have evolved, I understand that it is impossible it could have evolved because it is an irreducibly complex system (ICS) that would require intelligence to assemble it.

An ICS is a system that requires dissimilar parts, and in which if any one of the parts are removed the system cannot function.

Take a chainsaw. If gasoline powered, it will require a gas tank, gas, a carborator or fuel injector to get gas into the combustion chamber to mix with air allowed in by the intake valve to be ignited by the spark from a spark plug with the explosive gasses being released by an exhaust valve and the resulting explosion driving a piston which turns a sprocket to power the chain.

Take even one of the parts off and the chainsaw can no longer function.

A flagellum is similar in that it consists of several parts designed to operate as a "trolling motor" for a unicelled organism.

So why could this not evolve? Simply because NONE of the individual parts would have known that the others were evolving so that the one individual part could start evolving to hook up with others one day in the future.

Only intelligence could have "caused" this.

So unless you guys are espousing some form of intelligent evolution I am unaware of and wish to throw the entire random mutation thingy out the window, you are going to have to come to understand that an ICS cannot just fall out of a rock.....
Edited by - JerryB on 12/24/2010 12:27:44
Go to Top of Page

JerryB
Skeptic Friend

279 Posts

Posted - 12/24/2010 :  14:12:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JerryB a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Hawks

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Several examples have been proposed as evidence of Irreducible Complexity. Like the inner ear, bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, and such. All of them have been shot down because after a closer examination, evidence show that they weren't irreducibly complex.
And one could also posulate how something IC could evolve:

1. Insertion sequences are stretches of DNA tht move from one location to another. They consist of a gene (whose product does the actual DNA cutting and re-ligating) that is surrounded on both sides (left and right) by certain DNA sequences (and possibly DNA tertiary structure is important) that the gene product recognises. It would look something like this:

Left sequence-----Gene (called a transposase)------Right sequence

2. Transposons are similar to insertion sequences, the main difference being that they also contain extra genes, such as those for antibiotic resistance.

3. Imagine a situation where two insertion sequences happen to insert themselves around a gene for antibiotic resitance:

Left sequence----Transposase---Right sequence-----Antibiotic---Left sequence---Transposase----Right sequence

4. Imagine a few simple mutations that disable some of the sequences that the transposase recognises:

Left sequence---Transposase---Wight sequence--- Antibiotic----Weft sequence-----Transposase----Right sequence

5. The transposase can't recognise the "wight sequence" or the "weft sequence" but can still recognise "left" and "right".

6. You have something that is irreducibly complex: A left sequence, a transposase, an antibiotic resistance gene and a right sequence.

And lo and behold: Composite transposons look like they were made just that way. For example, Tn10 is flanked by two IS10 sequences and contains genes for, for example, tetracycline.



If I fully understand you here, then how is it you think you have an ICS?

This is not a system of dissimilar parts wherein if one removes a single part the system will stop functioning.

It's a system of very similar parts wherein if you remove any one part, it will still make proteins just different ones.

What you have placed into your gedanken would be like me trying to create an ICS using a random number generator.

Let's see, I get a 3, a 5,a 4 and a 2. Add them all up and I have an ICS that functions to produce the number 14. But if I remove the number two, the system doesn't stop functioning, it still functions but now to produce the number 12.

This is not an ICS, it violates the very definition of one.
Go to Top of Page

R.Wreck
SFN Regular

USA
1191 Posts

Posted - 12/24/2010 :  14:27:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send R.Wreck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JerryB

I understand that it is impossible it could have evolved because it is an irreducibly complex system (ICS) that would require intelligence to assemble it.



You may believe that it is impossible, but you would be wrong. And several years behind the science.

The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley

The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 22 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.83 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000