lindagarrette Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 #2. Irreducible Complexity. Naturally occurring biological and molecular machines have been shown to have components such as signal transduction circuits, sophisticated motors, and much more biological circuitry. It is true that these machines need all of their parts to function. Without each of their parts, they cannot function. Natural selection cannot build such systems. By definition, it can only preserve them once they are present. Microbiologist Michael Behe literally labels them "irreducibly complex" and even goes so far as to suggest that "maybe they look designed because they are(were)". Again, I feel that this points toward ID, rather than Darwinian evolution & natural selection. Behe picks out isolated samples where the explanation is either not known or not well defined while he egnores the preponderance of evidence on the other side. Yes there are a few cases, usually in very simple organisms, where irreducable complexity might apply but if that were natural, then it would be common. But it's not. We are certainly excellent examples to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Has anyone considered the possibility that this intelligent design might be authored by exterrestrial beings. I'm sure you have all heard about the speculation that our planet was seaded by visiters from elsewhere. There are a signifficent number of people that have considered this as an explaination for the discrepancies in the fossil record. We have no solid evidence for such an event, but reason suggests that if you believe that there is at least a possibility that other life exists in the cosmos, this may have occured. Just food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 I know people who speculate (some are convinced) that the Caucasian race was seeded by aliens and everyone else evolved from apes. Although there is no evidence to support this, it can't actually be disproven, either. Read Shermer's book on Why People Believe Wierd Things for possible explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquagem Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Ah ha! I read it already. That's great. How do you feel about his major argument, that the evolution of language shares so much in common with biological evolution that we can truly say we are able to see evolution in action? Is his analysis consistent with your prior training in linquistics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 That's great. How do you feel about his major argument, that the evolution of language shares so much in common with biological evolution that we can truly say we are able to see evolution in action? Is his analysis consistent with your prior training in linquistics? There are some similarities but language did not "evolve" in the Darwinian sense, such as mutation and survival of the fittest. Languages develop over time as people create more uses for words and structures. The main thing is language is learned. The differences between languages are mainly due to human memory. In a generation, it's possible to forget how to pronounce something or what it used to mean. But when it's written, it can be stored and relearned, revived, as needed. We still study ancient Greek (I did) and Latin for some reason beyond my reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 I believe that I read there were some studies that indicated that languages of different origin share certain commonalities in specific words for concepts. I think one of the examples was the word "no". Most all languages have a word that sounds near enough to no that means no I'm not a linguist so what exactly the ramifications or the relivance of this is may yet to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 I believe that I read there were some studies that indicated that languages of different origin share certain commonalities in specific words for concepts. I think one of the examples was the word "no". Most all languages have a word that sounds near enough to no that means no I'm not a linguist so what exactly the ramifications or the relivance of this is may yet to be seen.There is an entire field of study dedicated to this topic. Historical linguistics (also diachronic linguistics or comparative linguistics) is primarily the study of languages which are recognizably related through similarities such as vocabulary, word formation, and syntax. Historical linguistics aims to classify the world's languages by their genetic affiliations and to trace the historic development of languages. Studies have been focused mostly in the area of Indo-European languages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 The main thing is language is learned. The differences between languages are mainly due to human memory. In a generation, it's possible to forget how to pronounce something or what it used to mean. I actually know of an example of this...Last year, my husband took me on a trip to Tangier Island, a small island in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia. It is a very isolated little place, with a population of around 800 people, no cars, mostly fisherman, tourists on the weekends throughout summer for a few hours during the day. Mainly, their way of life, their very existence, went undisturbed since the island was founded in Colonial times. Within the last 50 years or so, they've gotten telephone and power lines from the mainland. However, they still carry an almost Elizabethan accent, almost a dialect of their own. It's not like going from Richmond to Philadelphia... More like going from Savannah to Tortuga (BVI), if you know what I mean. They don't sound exactly like people from England, but they sound more like Brits than they sound like Virginians, or Marylanders. However, as most of them now have DirecTv in their homes, the older generation has noticed a marked change in what the younger ones sound like. At least that's what we were told around 1am on a pier, watching blue crabs molt... ;)It seemed sad for the older ones to admit that their existence was changing, and it was noticable to them in just one generation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Here is an example of Old English spoken 10th Century. It's a familiar passage from the Bible. What is it? Us is riht micel ðæt we rodera weard, wereda wuldorcining, wordum herigen, modum lufien! He is mægna sped, heafod ealra heahgesceafta, frea ælmihtig. Næs him fruma æfre, or geworden, ne nu ende cymþ ecean drihtnes, ac he bið a rice ofer heofenstolas. Heagum þrymmum soðfæst and swiðfeorm sweglbosmas heold, þa wæron gesette wide and side þurh geweald godes wuldres bearnum, gasta weardum. ac þu us freodom gief, folca waldend, from yfla gehwam, a to widan feore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Reminds me a bit of beating through Beowulf... Just as an odd note: I have kids with all kinds of odd names (I'm a teacher) but the one that seems to take the cake was a little girl named Grindle... (the monster from Beowulf). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 Reminds me a bit of beating through Beowulf... Just as an odd note: I have kids with all kinds of odd names (I'm a teacher) but the one that seems to take the cake was a little girl named Grindle... (the monster from Beowulf). You mean Grendel. Did you read the book by John Gardner that tells the tale from the monster's point of view. It's very sad, especially the relationship with his mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 Sorry...I read it in 7th grade...about two decades ago.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakon1323 Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 I have yet to meet anyone able to prove that there is NOT an Invisible Pink Unicorn.I have yet to meet anyone able to prove that there is NOT a dragon in my garage.I have yet to meet anyone able to prove that there are NO fairies.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakon1323 Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 -sorry that was perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 Freethinker, I think you can add a feather to your bonnet, ok? As I was getting ready to post something similar to our new member, JP, i noticed that dave had already taken care of things.Ah yes, the slow deterioration of the believers mindset! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakon1323 Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 JP, you do make some good points, but i must say that it looks like (in my opinion) youre going about it the wrong way. First of all, with all due respect, the way you post sounds almost as if you were a nun teaching a 4th grade class. Wether the reactions are conscious or sub conscious, they are bound to be more negative than if you presented yourself with a less authoritative tone. The majority of members here are grown, educated adults. Second, keep in mind that this is a scientific forum that is tollerant and accepting of theological views and beleifs, this is not a religious forum incorporating science. I would tend to say that you cannot present an idea and then shift the burden of proof elsewhere. Burden of proof , especially here, is yours and yours alone. If others help you in that effort, all the better, that helps fuel a healthy discusssion. Otherwise, forcing it toward others will instigate resentment, and therefore, limit discussion.On the topic of inferrence, it doesnt work, its about as good here as a gut feeling. Bringing in the judicial system doesnt really help because again, they use inferrence like a gut feeling to steer toward the right place to find evidence, plus the judicial system is rediculously flawed to start with which is increasingly exagurated by your reference to television which is almost gauranteed to be highly inaccurate and rarely resembles truth. Furthermore, it would benefit you greatly if you start phrasing things that are opinions or faiths more as your opinion (like: 'i think it could be' as opposed to 'it is' or 'it must be' ). you will get a little less confrontation and a little more discussion of how or why they dont agree (or even agree) Dont get me wrong, im not trying to criticize or discourage you in any way, i just wanted to give u a little more insight to what youre up against and where you might be steering off course.BTW, im glad to see youre following maddog's advice on structure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakon1323 Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 On the subject of language, could not something be said for miseducation or even a lack of it ?I remember when the 't' was silent in the word 'often'. (I never really thought it should be there but it kinda went in the opposite direction of my choice). Now im one of the only ones that pronounces it w/o the 't'ive noticed that with many words, theyre pronounced differently on an increasing level which appears like its due to education or efforts of extreme slang(also common). There are some similarities but language did not "evolve" in the Darwinian sense, such as mutation and survival of the fittest. Languages develop over time as people create more uses for words and structures. The main thing is language is learned. The differences between languages are mainly due to human memory. In a generation, it's possible to forget how to pronounce something or what it used to mean. But when it's written, it can be stored and relearned, revived, as needed. We still study ancient Greek (I did) and Latin for some reason beyond my reasoning.I would think that language as with any skill or trade should be passed on for the sake of knowledge and or reference. What if we still spoke ancient languages fluently? We'd have a better understanding of our history. We might even be able to better understand what the bible is, factual or fictitous stories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts