I'd just like to take a moment to point out that here we tend to be quite "robust" when we debate. Basicly because we like to explore issues so if we seem to disagree it can be to just get a better understanding. And sometimes we'll take a side just to explore an issue better. And if someone isn't insulting we'll always respect thier beliefs.

Anyway as the mouse trap example in that article stated how do you get over irreducible complexity as it puts it Opus? (for the non evolutionary side).

Also for the previous "there are only 23 characters" thing the point is it wouldn't matter how many characters there are. (sorry never noticed it before)

If you have an infinatly long number it will contain within it imencly complex but finite patterns. When applied to somthing like a system such as the universe. These random but complex paterns would take the form of complex molecule formation and so on. Entropy I think is the proper term but I might be using it loosly.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Anyway as the mouse trap example in that article stated how do you get over irreducible complexity as it puts it Opus? (for the non evolutionary side).

By aptly demonstrating that the mousetrap is not irreducibly complex, or to be more specific - the parts composing the mousetrap could be created into something else:

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

Or, as H. Allen Orr states:

quote:

Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required. The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system "have to be there from the beginning" is dead wrong. http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html

IOW, Behe and the IDers tend to think of evolution as some sort of a straight, linear progression of one mutation after another slowly adding novel features, one on top of another. But this is hardly what evolution does, though this linear process isn't entirely excluded. Instead of a linear progression, evolution is more like a growing bush that has an addition of parts, deletion of parts, addition of multiple parts via duplication, addition of a second function to a part, and a gradual modification of those transitional or intermediary parts. More supporting research can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

So again, when it comes to the mousetrap analogy, the parts of the mousetrap can serve entirely different purposes, but still eventually becoming a true mousetrap. Or what’s more, the parts can be reduced down to something entirely different altogether.

And finally, the other real problem is the basic fallacy by analogy. Now of course many scientists use analogies as a tool to explain their concepts, but the analogy has to be a good and sound parallel to their concept. In this case, the mousetrap – a deliberate human-designed contraption, is not a very good example of any biological organism, at least none that I know of.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

This is precisely why I do not get involved in these discussions. Look at the carnage. LOOK AT THE CARNAGE I TELL YOU!!!

quote:

The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.

The problem as I see it is that something wouldn't just sprout into a part. A mutation would be that, just a mutation. Not a part. I don't see how you could randomly create a whole new organ, perhaps parts of an organ I dunno how that would aid the animal, and thus make this highly improbable freak of nature (which has the start of a new organ) more likely to survive.

I know there must be an explaination, it's just I don't know it and I haven't seen somthing yet which I belive explains it properly yet.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish The problem as I see it is that something wouldn't just sprout into a part. A mutation would be that, just a mutation. Not a part. I don't see how you could randomly create a whole new organ, perhaps parts of an organ I dunno how that would aid the animal, and thus make this highly improbable freak of nature (which has the start of a new organ) more likely to survive. I know there must be an explaination, it's just I don't know it and I haven't seen somthing yet which I belive explains it properly yet.

Well yes, there is an explanation - a mutation can indeed create new, novel features, as well as add, subtract, or duplicate already existing ones. It's entirely up to natural selection, however, to divy up the ones that are more or less advantageous to that organism and passes that down to generations with the ones that are more or less harmful to that organism where consequently they do not get passed down. The nylon bacterial bug, for example, produced a brand new novel feature that did not exist within the bacterial organism before. Or, take a mutation that increases both the bone length and density:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513

That would certainly qualify, would it not?

Here's some more papers worth looking up on PubMed:

quote:

Copley, S. D. (2000). “Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach.” Trends Biochem Sci 25(6): 261-265. PubMed Harding, M. M., Anderberg, P. I. and Haymet, A. D. (2003). “‘Antifreeze’ glycoproteins from polar fish.” Eur J Biochem 270(7): 1381-1392. PubMed Johnson, G. R., Jain, R. K. and Spain, J. C. (2002). “Origins of the 2,4-dinitrotoluene pathway.” J Bacteriol 184(15): 4219-4232. PubMed Long, M., Betran, E., Thornton, K. and Wang, W. (2003). “The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.” Nat Rev Genet 4(11): 865-875. PubMed Nurminsky, D., Aguiar, D. D., Bustamante, C. D. and Hartl, D. L. (2001). “Chromosomal effects of rapid gene evolution in Drosophila melanogaster.” Science 291(5501): 128-130. PubMed Patthy, L. (2003). “Modular assembly of genes and the evolution of new functions.” Genetica 118(2-3): 217-231. PubMed Prijambada I. D., Negoro S., Yomo T., Urabe I. (1995). “Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution.” Appl Environ Microbiol. 61(5):2020-2. PubMed Ranz, J. M., Ponce, A. R., Hartl, D. L. and Nurminsky, D. (2003). “Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme.” Genetica 118(2-3): 233-244. PubMed Seffernick, J. L. and Wackett, L. P. (2001). “Rapid evolution of bacterial catabolic enzymes: a case study with atrazine chlorohydrolase.” Biochemistry 40(43): 12747-12753. PubMed Ganfornina M. D., Sanchez D. 1999. “Generation of evolutionary novelty by functional shift.” Bioessays. 21(5):432-9. PubMed Mayr, E. 1960. “The Emergence of Evolutionary Novelties.” in Evolution After Darwin: Volume 1: The Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History, and Future, Sol Tax, ed. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. pp. 349-380. Pellmyr, O. and Krenn, H. W., 2002. “Origin of a complex key innovation in an obligate insect-plant mutualism.” PNAS. 99(8):5498-5502. PubMed Prum, R. O. and Brush, A. H., 2002. “The evolutionary origin and diversification of feathers.” Q Rev Biol. 77 (3), 261-295. PubMed True, J. R. and Carroll, S. B., 2002. “Gene co-option in physiological and morphological evolution.” Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 18, 53-80. PubMed

There's literally thousands of examples of mutations giving rise to brand new novel features.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

One may find it perfectly feasible for a design system to be integrating with mechanisms of chance, I simply do not. The basis of my argument are the disciplines of chance and design, both fiercely repelling each other.

You speak of a selective engine, natural selection; we owe our existence (not birth) to a random process ? The probabilities involved in sustaining the simplist form of life are beyond the capabilities of modern computing power. How does chance transform the implausible to the probable ? You see, no matter which way I look at it, evolution is based on 'random' selection, and it is in this context I imply that evolution is indeed, chance.

for old times sake, i believe in creationism

anybody know the basic foundation of science??

the scientific method. can u use it to prove evolution? or creationism for that matter? let us see.

quote:

What is the ``scientific method''? The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this: 1. Observe some aspect of the universe. 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

For evolution...

1. Cannot be observed because scientists were not around then.
2. Have certainly done that.
3. Have done that.
4. Cannot be done, because we cannot create the climate of conditions of the earth when it was formed/created. We cannot recreate the events that happened during the beginning.
5. Evolution has come about as a theory even though there are discrepancies in it.

Conclusion on my part: With the impossibility to use the Scientific Method "to the book" for either evolution or creationism, both are still based on faith, for every scientific law and theory starts out by faith. first you have an idea, then u put your faith in that it is true, and so you carry out the scientific method. but where the scientific method cant be used fully, faith is and will be the flame behind the "idea". faith in darwinism or faith in creationism.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider One may find it perfectly feasible for a design system to be integrating with mechanisms of chance, I simply do not. The basis of my argument are the disciplines of chance and design, both fiercely repelling each other. You speak of a selective engine, natural selection; we owe our existence (not birth) to a random process ? The probabilities involved in sustaining the simplist form of life are beyond the capabilities of modern computing power. How does chance transform the implausible to the probable ? You see, no matter which way I look at it, evolution is based on 'random' selection, and it is in this context I imply that evolution is indeed, chance.

yes i agree.

how can chaos turn into order??

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: for old times sake, i believe in creationism anybody know the basic foundation of science?? the scientific method. can u use it to prove evolution? or creationism for that matter? let us see. For evolution... 1. Cannot be observed because scientists were not around then.

Incorrect. First of all, evolution is not something that happened millions of years ago. It is still happening, and mutations on genes are observable. Secondly, there is numerous indirect evidence, mostly the fossil record. Finally, the observed rate at which mutations occur is precisely the one needed for the time it takes the species to diverge based on the fossil record. Overall, such an interaction can hardly be a circumstance.

quote:

2. Have certainly done that. 3. Have done that.

Yes.

quote:

4. Cannot be done, because we cannot create the climate of conditions of the earth when it was formed/created. We cannot recreate the events that happened during the beginning.

Partially correct, I agree. The historical evolution is an extrapolation of observed phenomena and recovered fossil record. We can not use evolution to predict every single species divergion or the exact way in which some species will evolve, but the general underlying principle so far seems to be correct. Especially since there is no other theory that is as good in describing what we see.

quote:

5. Evolution has come about as a theory even though there are discrepancies in it.

Which discrepancies?

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider One may find it perfectly feasible for a design system to be integrating with mechanisms of chance, I simply do not.

Your argument from incredulity doesn't hold much validity, I'm afraid.

quote:

The basis of my argument are the disciplines of chance and design, both fiercely repelling each other.

Well again you're confusing "design" with that of "deliberate" design. As I've argued and demonstrated, evolution creates plenty of design as well - it's just not a deliberate one set for by some Designer. I'll let this minor point go since you seem to dismiss it. Regardless, I do understand your argument - the problem is you have neither shown the weakness of evolution showing design, or any evidence of a deliberate design from a Designer of sorts.

quote:

You speak of a selective engine, natural selection; we owe our existence (not birth) to a random process ?

If this is what the evidence clearly shows, and there's a great deal of evidence for it, then yes, we owe our existence (not birth) to a random process - mutation, combined with a non-random process - natural selection.

quote:

The probabilities involved in sustaining the simplist form of life are beyond the capabilities of modern computing power.

It's never a good thing to have a computer, a man-made product that works on known man-made circuitry, to a biological organism. This is something that a great many skeptical engineers tend to do over and over. Keep these two concepts separate. In some ways this analogy is okay, but in most it's a bit erroneous.

And in regards to probabilities, the problem with most IDers here is they tend to forget about the natural selection filter, and apply the probabilities to the "chance alone" part of evolution - mutation. Taken as a whole with natural selection, those probabilities shrink drastically. I addressed this here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...on&pagenumber=2

quote:

How does chance transform the implausible to the probable ?

When it's not implausible in the first place, the equation merely becomes plausible->plausible.

quote:

You see, no matter which way I look at it, evolution is based on 'random' selection, and it is in this context I imply that evolution is indeed, chance.

Well there's nothing about selection that's random. That's a bit of an oxymoron and also a fallacious statement to make.

In any case, again I don't deny that chance, or mutation is part of the equation. I'm sorry if this troubles you in any way, but the evidence simply supports this coupled with natural selection. That's not to say that an alternative theory or mechanism is possible - we just haven't seen one yet that's tested, retested, observed, verified, and falsified.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Well again you're confusing "design" with that of "deliberate" design. As I've argued and demonstrated, evolution creates plenty of design as well - it's just not a deliberate one set for by some Designer.

Tell me, if it is not deliberate, then what is it ? The weakness of evolution is that it is based on a 'random' process - chance.

quote:

If this is what the evidence clearly shows, and there's a great deal of evidence for it, then yes, we owe our existence (not birth) to a random process - mutation, combined with a non-random process - natural selection.

This is where I disagree with you. If design (which is always deliberate) relies on chance, then it cannot be a design. The evidence we observe may well be an aspect of 'deliberate' design (not chance) which we have yet to comprehend. Remember, around 70 yrs ago scientists were adamant that the atom was the smallest particle known to man. This supposed fact was taught in schools. Point being, that science has been wrong in the past, and as you say, given time, fresher evidence emerges in anticipation that we, as the human race, may understand the truth (fact) one day.

quote:

When it's not implausible in the first place, the equation merely becomes plausible->plausible.

Complete nonsense I'm afraid. The probabilities of sustaining simple life exceed the realms of plausibility and enter absurdity. I used the machine example to illustrate the sheer size of the numbers we are dealing with.

quote:

Well there's nothing about selection that's random. That's a bit of an oxymoron and also a fallacious statement to make.

Then why call it 'random' selection ? Why do the text books (certainly the ones I have read) refer to evolution as a process of random selection ? Unless of course this is an example of how the theory of evolution is evolving.


I can accept a model which permits intelligent design to adapt to dynamic surroundings, merely because the system in question is designed to do so. One may argue that evolution (random selection/chance) plays an active role in the process of adaptation based on observable evidence. We are misunderstood, perhaps. There is that chance.

Either way, there is a fundamental and crucial difference between the two methodologies. Chance is probability, where as design is certainty.

PS : No need to apologise about your view. You are entitled to it and users should respect that.