Jump to content
Science Forums

Round Two: God vs. Darwin


Fishteacher73
 Share

Recommended Posts

From the closed thread.

 

Lolic: The eye is one example. It’s sophistication, irreducible complexity, …

 

What makes you think the eye is IC? In Darwin's Black Box, Behe doesn’t say it is. Have you done an IC analysis yourself? Can you show it to us?

 

Lolic: specified complexity…

 

By Dembski’s criteria? If so, then you need to show us the probability calculation, as Dembski demands in his book.

 

Lolic: Science has a bit of an issue going on, having defined science as the study of material processes, they disqualify design [i.e., GOD] from the start, and that ensures that some materialistic account of evolution must be true in their mind. The answer is derived or caused by the initial assumption.

 

That’s your spin on the matter. And as I'll show below, it is not correct.

 

Lolic: Is that good science? Should scientists begin with predispositions that don’t allow us to follow the evidence?

 

No, your distorted version of things would not be good science.

 

Lolic: Now really TeleMad, you like to pick apart my quotes, (the length, the year, etc,) but why not answer the actual question? Isn’t it a fair question?

 

1) You miss the fact that Darwin didn’t start off with the materialistic presupposition that no God existed. It wasn’t atheism that caused Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution by means of natural selection, it was the overwhelming evidences he saw in his journeys on the HMS Beagle.

 

2) You also miss the fact that your religious type of ID has nothing real backing it up: you have no empirical evidence of the alleged designer and all the conclusions of ID are based on inferences disputed by the scientific community at large. On the other hand, evolution has ‘tons’ of anatomical, physiological, and genetic evidences supporting common descent, as well as demonstrated events of speciation, as well as a mechanism that can explain both.

 

3) You also miss the fact that ‘tons’ of people believe both in God and in evolution….theistic evolutionists. So how can you claim their conclusion of evolution being true was caused by their belief in materialism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Telemad: Not that you were posting here back then, but I already addressed this matter somewhat back 07/18/2004, here http://www.hypography.com/sciencefo...hp?t=548&page=2 &pp=10&highlight=chambered

(URL split to prevent page from becoming too wide) ...

 

The quote about zoology class notes was not from me. I wasn't here in 2004. Was there a previous "Lolic"?

 

Huh? Did you not see this part, even though you yourself quoted me saying it?

 

Telemad: Not that you were posting here back then, but I already addressed this matter somewhat back 07/18/2004, here http://www.hypography.com/sciencefo...hp?t=548&page=2 &pp=10&highlight=chambered

(URL split to prevent page from becoming too wide) ...

 

Also, where did you see your name anywhere in the part with the zoology class notes? The only name shown was my own...Telemad. See..

 

Telemad: One problem is that some look at a complex organ like the four-chambered human heart in isolation. There are many types of hearts out there in the animal world. Some have 3 1/2 chambers, some have 3 chambers, some have 2 chambers, some have a single chamber, and some are just muscular blood vessels that pump. It is not that difficult to form a plausible chain of such hearts leading from a simple muscular blood vessel up to a four-chambered human heart.

 

Some snippets from my zoology class notes...

 

 

**********************************************

Arthropods have an open circulatory system. ... The heart is either compact or tubular and consists of 1 or more chambers arranged in a linear fashion.

**********************************************

 

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tee hee! Got a useful purpose for the Cockyx to propose? If its got no use then the ID view says that it would be selected away immediately, yet it appears in every Homo and Australopithecus fossil going back a couple million years....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

i believe the purpose of the coccyx is to hurt the nerves near it for long periods of time so creatures will eventually learn to sit gently thereby easing stress and contributing to meditative states which inevitablly bring said creatures closer to the god mind. but seriously i just have a difficult time simplifying its function to an evolutionary after effect of tail de-selection; i remember hearing desmond morris once postulating that men find cleavege attractive because it looks somewhat like the buttocks, interesting i guess but really who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i believe the purpose of the coccyx is to hurt the nerves near it for long periods of time so creatures will eventually learn to sit gently thereby easing stress and contributing to meditative states which inevitablly bring said creatures closer to the god mind.
Yep there ya go: a hypothesis that mechanical mechanisms result in the development of intelligence! Woot! I'll agree with that one!
but seriously i just have a difficult time simplifying its function to an evolutionary after effect of tail de-selection;
It doesn't really matter what the exact source is, the only point I was trying to make here is that many ID arguments try to turn Evolution theories on themselves by saying "if its not useful, it can't have stuck around, so you *magically* have to have a whole bunch of things *just happen* to occur at *exactly* the same time so its so unlikely that ID must be true" This of course is shown false by the Cockyx, because it has no useful purpose, has been around for millions of years and has never been "deselected"...Eventually it might evolve (back?) into a tail and become an evolutionary advantage because the buttocks look like cleavage and the tail will look like a second head. Sounds reasonable to me...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if one assumes the 10 pieces came from other pre-existing structures, there are still 30 other structures that had to soddenly appear, all at the same time, to make a complete flagellum than has a functional advantage.

 

if they did not appear all at the same time, the flagellum does not work, has no functional advantage, and would not be selected by the definition of natural selection.

 

Micro evolution is like darwin's finches. change within a species. accepted theory.

 

macro evolution is much larger. believing that all life could possibly come from the primortal goo or from one species. That one thing or species evolved into all the species.

 

Examples of micro (which is accepted) are often used to try and show that macro evolution is true. This is what ID disagrees with, at least in my view.

 

I have made someone else an offer to view my VHS copy of "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life". A great video and gives good information in this area. Perhaps after this if you are interested I can send it your way. If you like this area, I think you would find it fascinating.

Thanks for the definitions (between micro/macro). :) You still haven't made a case

with Flagellum. Even if I accept your 30 pieces statement. You don't know that these

might not have come from ancestors we haven't discovered. I learned a fact that

Bacteria have another way to exchange genetic material. I don't know the term, but it

is like exchanging baseball cards. So the 30 pieces could have come from a neighboring

species of bacteria. As Buffy says we have vestigial components that all of sudden have

capability. The have been bones of Ceteacian (whales, etc) that have been found with

some appendiges that aren't quite fins yet not quite legs.

 

I can see by the lack of rigor in you arguement, you have an agenda, a mission if you

will. So any evidence to the contrary must be cast aside. If you would make a logical

arguement, I would listen. Your response imply you are not. :cup:

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I learned a fact that Bacteria have another way to exchange genetic material. I don't know the term, but it is like exchanging baseball cards.

 

I believe you are talking about conjugation.

 

The have been bones of Ceteacian (whales, etc) that have been found with

some appendiges that aren't quite fins yet not quite legs.

 

Darn, I think that's ambulocetus (or something like that).

 

Anyway, even modern whales have a vestigial pelvis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

at least as far as any one can determine. just thought i would pop in to remind you that this is a theory not a known fact. maybe i am being a stickler but i just couldn't help myself.

What is not a know fact, that I no longer have tail or you still do. :cup: Am I missing

something. The bone structure for tails is similar on all vertebrates. Subtle differences

when the hind legs carry more of the weight. This is all based on need. When bipedal

the need for a tail is minimized unless being used as a counterbalance (as in dinosaurs).

 

I an not unopposed to ID as a concept. I would just suppose that any such "Designer"

would use Evolution to do the job. Most efficient. :)

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i believe the purpose of the coccyx is to hurt the nerves near it for long periods of time so creatures will eventually learn to sit gently thereby easing stress and contributing to meditative states which inevitablly bring said creatures closer to the god mind.

That is a bent I have never heard. Speaks volumes to you mission to convert the

scientific world. So tell me in ID terms what is God's purpose of a fart ? :cup: I mean

in particular most mammals exhibit this behavior. So why ? :)

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a bent I have never heard. Speaks volumes to you mission to convert the

scientific world. So tell me in ID terms what is God's purpose of a fart ? :) I mean

in particular most mammals exhibit this behavior. So why ? ;)

 

Maddog

 

First, I am almost positive the Mother was being sarcastic. It sounded like sracasm the first time I read it. ;)

 

Second, everyone knows that the fart has three main functions. The first is to make people laugh, just ask my boys! The second is to turn your regular old bathtub into a bubble bath. And the third is for husbands to annoy the snot out of their wives when they pull the covers over their heads in the middle of the night! Come on guys, you know this stuff!! :cup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to sum up a few things.

 

1) Hemoglobin. Lolic used some probability calculation to try to show that hemoglobin is the result of intelligent design. Yet Michael Behe himself says that for hemoglobin the case for design is weak and far from convincing.

 

 

2) Eye. Lolic argued that the eye was too complex to be anything but the product of design. First, he claimed the eye is irreducibly complex, yet the eye does not meet Behe's definition of IC in his Darwin's Black Box. Lolic also claimed the eye possessed specified complexity - Dembski's catch phrase - yet he did not do any probability calculation as is needed to establish specified complexity as defined by Dembski. And as many people have pointed out, trying to do so for biological systems is very tricky.

 

An old argument asks, "What good is half an eye?". Answer ... a lot. An eye that can see only blurry images is better than an eye that can see only light and its direction, and an eye that can sense light and its direction is better than a group of cells that can't.

 

Also, there is a logical progression of structural complexity of eyes still seen in extant organisms. And we have examples of extremely simple eyes: the simple ocelli (eye spots) of planarians that don't serve to form images but just to detect light and its direction, even an eyespot in the single celled dinoflagellate, even simpler dermal light receptors in many invertebrates, even going back to a non-visual system in certain bacteria that have a form of rhodopsin called bacteriorhodopsin.

 

Similar to Behe's statement that given myoglobin, an apparent precursor to hemoglobin, the case for hemoglobin being designed is weak and far from convincing, given bacteria with bacteriorhodopsin, then a single celled dinoflagellate with an eye spot, then a multi-cellular planarian with ocelli, as well as the dozen of genes shared between eyes of very distantly related organisms, the case for design of the eye is weak and far from convincing.

 

 

3) Heart. Lolic used logic similar to the old "what good is half an eye" to try to show that the heart is the product of intelligent design. But just as with the eye, we know of many different types of hearts, ranging from simple contractile vessels, to single-chambered hearts, to hearts with 2 chambers, to hearts with 3 chambers, to hearts with 3 1/2 chambers, to hearts with 4 chambers; as well as some organisms having open circulatory systems instead of a closed one like we do. There is a logical progression of structural complexity still seen in extant organisms. What good is half a heart? A lot, to a lineage that used to have a quarter of a heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a bent I have never heard. Speaks volumes to you mission to convert the

scientific world. So tell me in ID terms what is God's purpose of a fart ? :eek: I mean

in particular most mammals exhibit this behavior. So why ? :)

 

Maddog

 

obviously to keep us humble. and i hope you don't think i am being serious about anything but the idea that something may be very similar to something else and not be the same thing at all. i have no tail nor have i ever. i think some people just stop at a certain point because all of the variables line up. to say human being may have descended from creatures with tails is one thing. that's scientific. to say they did and that is that is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to say human being may have descended from creatures with tails is one thing. that's scientific. to say they did and that is that is not.

As you I was making a joke. I think the descent from tail possessing mammals is

plausible (a lot of evidence) and probably the best explanation to date. It is sad that

Paleontology does not get to create as definitive proof as in Physics or Mathematics... :eek:

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, everyone knows that the fart has three main functions. The first is to make people laugh, just ask my boys! The second is to turn your regular old bathtub into a bubble bath. And the third is for husbands to annoy the snot out of their wives when they pull the covers over their heads in the middle of the night! Come on guys, you know this stuff!! :eek:

I guess I am more gullible. :P I can understand your think regard why Humans fart...

What I curious is why mammals fart ? Is this an instinct to be funny ? Maybe Telemad

can give some biological reason I am not aware of... ? :)

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II usually like to support statements I make and/or check them for accuracy: not that this one (from the recently-closed parent thread) was particularly important, but still…

 

Lolic: Dr. John Stevens make the following comparison in an article in Byte magazine back in 1985,

 

...

 

In his article, Dr. Stevens wrote that if we were to attempt to duplicate the computing power of the human eye, we would have to build the world’s most advanced computer with a single enormous silicon chip that would cover 10,000 cubic inches and contain billions of transistors and hundreds of miles of circuit traces.

 

***********************************************

 

Telemad: And back around 1985 computer professionals also said no computer would ever be able to have 4GB of RAM. They were wrong.

 

 

Forgot that I gave away most of my oldest computer books. The oldest one I have that addresses memory is from 1996: 11 years later than the 1985 date of interest. And yet even then here’s what was said.

 

“Pentium-based systems can address as much as four gigabytes of memory. To put these memory-addressing capabilities into perspective, four gigabytes (4,096M) or memory costing the going rate of $30 per megabyte for fast (60 nanoseconds or less) RAM chips would total $122,880!! Of course, you could probably negotiate a much better deal with a chip vendor is you planned to buy four gigabytes of SIMMS! Even if you could afford all this memory, the largest SIMMs available today are 72-pin versions with 64M capacity. Most Pentium motherboards only have four to eight SIMM sockets, which allows a maximum of 256M to 512M if all four or eight sockets are filled.”

(Scott Mueller, Upgrading and Repairing PCs: Sixth Edition, Que, 1996, 276)

 

So not only would it cost $122,800 but it would also require 8 times the memory slots of the best boards – and with 64 memory slots, where would the rest of the motherboard circuitry go! - to get 4GB in 1996.

 

The statements were much more dramatic back when the first 32-bit external address buses were introduced in the i80386, 11 years earlier in … 1985.

 

The point is that what was said about computer technology 20 years ago, in 1985 – or even those made 11 years later, in 1996 - cannot simply be accepted as still being valid today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I am more gullible. :) I can understand your think regard why Humans fart...

What I curious is why mammals fart ? Is this an instinct to be funny ? Maybe Telemad

can give some biological reason I am not aware of... ? :eek:

 

Maddog

 

Durring digestion certain compounds breakdown into a gasous state. They need to be passed too. For further farty questions check out this site: http://www.heptune.com/farts.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Tormod....There have been many ID/Evolution argumanets and they usually end up in flame wars. Lets get this thread back onto its original track.

 

Lolic had brought up the idea that certain peices of evidence were being distorted to push the evolutionary agenda. Again, as the thread started out, how is this being done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what I don't understand (escapes me) is why would God of ID make use of Evolution to do his

"dirty deeds" and get them done "dirt cheep" (if you don't mind my pun). As flame wars from this topic,

it is quite simple -- this is flammable material. Very few subject are more volitile than whether a God and

how did get all this done were he/she to exist. I feel the same way about Santa Claus... How does he

get all those presents under everyones tree before sunrise on Christmas Day ? You have to believe. :eek:

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...