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
 Conservative Christian :D
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 7

andrew19
New Member

USA
16 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  12:24:09  Show Profile Send andrew19 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hi my name is Andrew. Im 19 currently serving our country in Montana. And like my subject block informs you, I am a conservative, God fearing, country loving, Christian. I LOVE talking to people about there beliefs and telling people about mine. Out of ALL of the stuff i have read on this and many other forums, no one has ever addressed irreducible complexity among organisms. I would like to know the current theories/beliefs in respect to this. I know mine. And for those who don't know what it is, It is(in layman's terms) that even "the most simple" life forms are so complex that it isn't possible for it to exist unless every part of it came about at the same time. I have found nothing but the creation side of things, telling me about it. I would like to hear what the evolution side has to say in rebuttal. I have been looking on the internet but i cant find anything. Can you help me out ???? Anyways God bless, have a good day.



[Moved to the Creation/Evolution folder - Dave W.]

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  12:33:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

This link will provide you with many hours of reading regarding the scientific rebuttals to Behe's IC arguement in a far more complete and thurogh manner than we could provide here.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  12:34:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Welcome to SFN and good luck, by the way. Just be prepared to provide details of your philisophical positions.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  12:34:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hello Andrew & welcome!

We have discussed irreductable complexity many times. Thus far, the hypothesis has been found wanting.

A new term, irreducibly complex, (IC) has been introduced into public discussions of evolution. The term was defined by Michael Behe in 1996 in his book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1). Irreducible complexity (also denoted IC) has gained prominence as the evidence for the intelligent design (ID) movement, which argues that life is so complicated that it must be the work of an intelligent designer (aka God) rather than the result of evolution. As you may have heard, the ID movement wants this taught in public schools as a new scientific theory. This essay will, I hope, prove helpful to any school teachers, boards of education, legislators and members of the press who may be wondering about it.

But, we'll be happy to discuss it again...




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Risendemonx
New Member

USA
48 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  12:37:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Risendemonx a Private Message  Reply with Quote
First of all, Welcome to SFN Andrew! I'm a bit new here myself.
Having said that, I won't be able to personally answer your question here due to time constraints (I only get so much break time in my job!)

I think some people here would like to know more information about your question though. For instance, what about life do you think is too complex to exist by itself? Why do you think so? What sources have you visited in the past which gave you this notion?

This information would be great in order for somebody to better address your question. In the mean time, I find that talkorigins.org is a great place to find some general information about the natural sciences with respect to evolutionary theory and geology.

sorry, I would love to go a bit more in-depth than that, but given the information you provide and my break being over, I can't really help much more than that. I wish you the best of luck in getting the information you desire, and will check back later!

"In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move."
--
Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  12:59:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Also it should be pointed out before we get too far into a discussion that,

Evolution has absolutely no bearing on the origins of the universe

and the harder to grasp,

Evolution has no bearing on the creation of life from non-living matter(abiogenesis), it only applies to the changing of one organism to another.

These concepts often get muddied into the mix because it is felt that if evolution is correct it would also nullify the other Biblical positions.

I think if you asked around here you might be surprised to find that while 90%+ of us consider evolution to be fact, very few of us would discount the possibility of some type of God like extra-universal being(s) creating the universe or beginning the universe on its course. We are just waiting for the data to come in.
Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 02/14/2008 13:02:22
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  13:09:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Andrew, maybe this analogy will help. This is a Roman arch:



Notice how the blocks curve around the top of the arch. The central block is called a keystone. It "locks" the other blocks in the arch in place and keeps them from collapsing. This arch is irreducibly complex in the sense that if you take away any single block, the entire arch would fail. Each block is essential in keeping the arch together.

Ignorant of how the arch is constructed, one might wrongly assume that such a structure could not be assembled gradually, block-by-block. One might mistakenly conclude that the arch had to be created all together as a single whole.



The trick, of course, is to build the arch over a scaffolding that is later removed. Evolution works in the same way. Structures are built on top of other structures which might later become redundant and disappear, leaving a feature which might superficially appear irreducibly complex, but which is nothing of the sort. In fact, this is exactly what has been proven to have happened in most of Behe's purported examples, demonstrating quite clearly that irreducibly complexity is an argument from incredulity (a logical fallacy) with no explanatory power whatsoever. It's a bogus argument.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/14/2008 13:10:26
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  13:10:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
andrew said:
Out of ALL of the stuff i have read on this and many other forums, no one has ever addressed irreducible complexity among organisms. I would like to know the current theories/beliefs in respect to this.

IC (irreducible complexity) has been demonstrated false on several occasions. The most commonly used example (bacterial flagella) has been thoroughly deconstructed and many of its parts are shown to have some function of their own.

This link is to a page with many other links, most of which are criticism of Behe's hypothesis. A good place to start.

(youtube vid)Dr Ken Miller (a practicing christian, PhD in cell biology) destroys Behe's claims about the bacterial flagellum in less than 6 minutes.

Dr Miller's presentation laid out in text form. Detailed, explicit, and completely devastating to the IC argument.

More from Dr Miller, in article form, demonstrating the falsity of the IC hypothesis.

Feel free to ask questions andrew. Most of us will be happy to answer.

(edited to correct atrocious spelling)

Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Edited by - Dude on 02/14/2008 13:26:38
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  13:19:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Great analogy Dude,

He's the Dude, man.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  14:15:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Umm that was H.H. with the analogy.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  15:22:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ignorant of how the arch is constructed, one might wrongly assume that such a structure could not be assembled gradually, block-by-block. One might mistakenly conclude that the arch had to be created all together as a single whole.


Exactly like the flagella. Exactly like Behe in the Dover trial. Love the analogy!

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Go to Top of Page

andrew19
New Member

USA
16 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  16:54:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send andrew19 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
First of all, after reading all of the responses to my question, Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is arguably one of the best movies of all time. Secondly, I appreciate the responses and the manner in which they were given. To be somewhat more precise in my question. How can the "simplest" life form, for example: A bacteria, evolve? from what i have been taught(in high school mind you) a bacteria needs all of its parts to survive. And to my knowledge there is NO evidence to suggest that the functions provided in bacteria today have been preformed by a different organelles? Am i wrong? Oh and thank you for the link Filthy, but i kept getting the impression from the writer that he was doing the same thing that i have heard people accuse creationists of doing. Godidit'ing only with evolution. In my humble opinion (and not overly intelligent one at that) both sides of this are guilty of the same pitfalls (that is lying ,forging refusing to correct themselves). And to be honest I believe its because we are all members of a fallen creation. But that is just me and you are more than welcome to disagree. Any ways Im still prayin for every one God bless !
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  17:32:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by andrew19

First of all, after reading all of the responses to my question, Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is arguably one of the best movies of all time. Secondly, I appreciate the responses and the manner in which they were given. To be somewhat more precise in my question. How can the "simplest" life form, for example: A bacteria, evolve? from what i have been taught(in high school mind you) a bacteria needs all of its parts to survive. And to my knowledge there is NO evidence to suggest that the functions provided in bacteria today have been preformed by a different organelles? Am i wrong? Oh and thank you for the link Filthy, but i kept getting the impression from the writer that he was doing the same thing that i have heard people accuse creationists of doing. Godidit'ing only with evolution. In my humble opinion (and not overly intelligent one at that) both sides of this are guilty of the same pitfalls (that is lying ,forging refusing to correct themselves). And to be honest I believe its because we are all members of a fallen creation. But that is just me and you are more than welcome to disagree. Any ways Im still prayin for every one God bless !
Hmm. I think that you might confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Abiogenesis is still uncertain and it's study continues.

biogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth. Despite the enormous progress that has been made since the Miller-Urey experiment, abiogenesis is under constant attack from creationists, who continually claim that the origin of life by natural processes is so unlikely as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible. Following are some articles that challenge this claim and demonstrate the fundamental misconception at the core of the creationists' arguments.

From the articles:

Introduction
Every so often, someone comes up with the statement "the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible". Often they cite an impressive looking calculation from the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, or trot out something called "Borel's Law" to prove that life is statistically impossible. These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.


It continues with a list of errors, but at this point, the long and short of it is that we simply don't know. However, just because the abiogenesis nut hasn't been cracked is not to automatically assume that some deity or other was responsible.

Here's another TO link, one to the Miller Urey experiment. Dr. Jonathon Wells of the Discovery Institute, who is a total waste of an educatuion, raised several objections which are answered here.

Introduction
Jonathan Wells's book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong (henceforth Icons) makes a travesty of the notion of honest scholarship. Purporting to document that "students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution," (p. XII) via common textbook topics such as peppered moths, embryo similarities, and fossil hominids [2], Icons in fact contains a bevy of its own errors. This is not original -- creationists have been making mistakes about evolution for years. Newly and more insidiously, however, Icons contains numerous instances of unfair distortions of scientific opinion, generated by the pseudoscientific tactics of selective citation of scientists and evidence, quote-mining, and "argumentative sleight-of-hand," the last meaning Wells's tactic of padding his topical discussions with incessant, biased editorializing. Wells mixes these ingredients in with a few accurate (but always incomplete) bits of science and proceeds to string together, often in a logically arbitrary fashion, a narrative that is carefully crafted to make the semblance of an honest case for Wells's central defamatory accusation: that mainstream biologists are "dogmatic Darwinists that misrepresent the truth to keep themselves in power" (pp. 242-243).


That's the intro; the entire page is worth a read as it covers a lot beyond abiogenesis.

Edited to add: Unlike Intelligent Design & the various Creationists conjectures, science has a strict peer review process that a manuscript or experiment must pass in order to be acccepted. It was peer review that shot down the Fleishman and Pons claims and experiments in cold fusion.

Another, a favorite on mine, is the archoraptor fraud.






"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Edited by - filthy on 02/14/2008 17:54:15
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  17:33:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
andrew asked:
How can the "simplest" life form, for example: A bacteria, evolve?

Perhaps you are confusing evolution and abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis, the study of life's origin, is very new. We have only recently begun to develope the ability to look back at the earth as it was 4 billion years ago. There are no conclusive and well evidenced theories in the field of abiogenesis, just some promising hypotheses at the moment. We will certainly learn more, but this is no easy task.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  20:32:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Welcome to SFN, Andrew19!

"Irreducible Complexity" is a notion (in scientific terms, it does not rise to the level of a "theory" nor even a "hypothesis") that's hardly new, though the term itself is.

"IC" is really just one of the the most recent modern spins on the old "argument from design," (also known as the "Teleological Argument"),which goes back at least as far as the old pagan, Plato, and which itself is essentially both an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity (previous link).

These (and other) rhetorical fallacies are well worth looking up and receiving your close scrutiny, as they are the kind of meat we devour here almost daily. Avoiding those fallacies, and others, would help you greatly here in these discussions.

I think that the very "strength" of Irreducible Complexity depends entirely upon its fallacies. There is no science to back it up, none. In fact, since it essentially requires an outside, unknowable, omnipotent deity (or something very much like one) to work, the IC notion is inherently untestable and unfalsifiable, thus making it an impossibly unfit subject for scientific study or consideration.

But let's look behind the curtain so we can understand the motivations of Behe and the Discovery Institute in pushing such notions as IC. The DI's once-secret Wedge Document exposes their motivations, which are deeply opposed to "materialist science," and are a form of political and religious reaction against the perceived evils of the modern world.

The DI people, through Intelligent Design and its little siblings IC and Dr. Dr. Bill Dembski's "Specified Complexity," love to pussy-foot around the identity of the "designer," speaking of it as God only when talking to church groups. They also like to use "sciency" terminology as much as they are capable. These tactics spring directly from the dishonest strategy outlined in the Wedge.

The Wedge shows why they would use the tactics of "pious frauds" to pursue their radical societal objectives -- objectives which are arguably neither traditionally "conservative" nor essentially "Christian."

Again, welcome!


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/14/2008 21:58:28
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2008 :  21:33:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by andrew19

...Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is arguably one of the best movies of all time.
I'll argue it. The movie absolutely sucked compared to the original radio broadcasts. But to make a non-sucky movie based on the original show would probably require a six-hour-long movie.
To be somewhat more precise in my question. How can the "simplest" life form, for example: A bacteria, evolve? from what i have been taught(in high school mind you) a bacteria needs all of its parts to survive. And to my knowledge there is NO evidence to suggest that the functions provided in bacteria today have been preformed by a different organelles? Am i wrong?
Not "wrong" so much as not thinking things through.

The basic argument is that no living thing could possibly be simpler than today's living bacteria, therefore they couldn't possibly have evolved. The argument fails because all arguments of the form "this couldn't possibly happen" do not require a rebuttal of "it happened in exactly this fashion and here's the evidence" but only "here's a plausible way that it could have happened." In other words, answering the "it isn't possible" argument only requires showing evidence that it is possible, and not evidence that it happened.

So far, as I understand things, abiogenesis research has provided plausible mechanisms for going from a "soup" of chemicals to simple self-replicating molecules; from simple self-replicators to a more-complex intermediary (such as "RNA world"), and from an intermediary to the theoretically simplest DNA-based bacteria (which doesn't actually exist right now).

And that's the second problem with the argument. What's alive today certainly isn't the same as what was alive four billion years ago. And the simplest living organism (in terms of "least DNA") still contains DNA that doesn't seem to serve a purpose - and so eliminating it would result in a "simpler" creature than that currently on the planet.

And, of course, the third problem is that while actual scientists say, "we don't know the answer, but we're working to discover it," the creationists are satisfied - sometimes vehemently so - with "we don't know the answer, therefore Goddidit." At first glance, the scientists' statements might look like "we don't know the answer, therefore evolutiondidit," but if you look deeper it'll be obvious that they're nothing like that at all. Because when the current theories fail, scientists find new ones to replace them, and then newer ones still to replace those.

Any scientist you can find who's said, "I don't know how it happened but it must have been evolution," isn't actually a scientist.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 7 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
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 1.3 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000