Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Avocationist

Pages: (14) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,06:41    Quote I mean, did you even read what I wrote? In what way does coming up with 10 out of 40 proteins help? In what way does it put the sytem to bed if the Type 3 system devolved from the flagellum? Ok....lets clear some things up. The flagellum was an example of an irreducible complexity(IC) system.  The argument behind IC is that they are examples of systems that cannot be reduced down to simpler parts, and therefore only could have been created by a designer.   You can think about the mousetrap, or about Paley's watch.  The argument of IC is that none of these systems could exist as any form of subsystem.   Wikipedia article explaining IC The type 3 system is an example of a simpler system that could be considered a subsystem of the flagellum.  It may not actually be proof of a previously existing system, but it is proof that the flagellum could function without all of its parts. There seems to be a misunderstanding AVO Avo thinks-to prove that a system is not IC, you would have to prove every stage at which the system evolved.  This is nearly impossible, even if we were to try and do this with an organism that we know evolved. i.e. how did the wheel involve into a harley-davidson motorcycle? We all know that the basic wheel(and wheeled transportation) is the great-grandfather of the harley, but even the greatest of historians would have a hard time giving you a complete and total time line for its evolution. Everyone else is simply saying that if you can reduce something to a simpler form, then you have proven that the original was not irreducibly complex.  This seems to make sense, but realize that they are not claiming that a type 3 system proves that the flagellum evolved, only that it proves that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. Now going back to my "points", why dont you apologize Avo?  It would show a great deal of goodwill on your part, and it would be the right thing to do.....

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,08:05    avo responds: Quote I wasted my time. This is actually beyond astonishing. I am at a mad tea party here. Behe has not moved the goalposts - he has no need to. No one can account even in a plausible way for how a system like the flagellum can have evolved. I mean, did you even read what I wrote? In what way does coming up with 10 out of 40 proteins help? In what way does it put the sytem to bed if the Type 3 system devolved from the flagellum? What is astonishing is that you persist in accusing us of not reading, not understanding, etc. What I wrote, what you simply cannot believe you read, is right in line with the mainstream evolutionary response to the application of IC to the bacterial flagellum. For instance, from Ken Miller: Quote The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. It also demonstrates, more generally, that the claim of "irreducible complexity" is scientifically meaningless, constructed as it is upon the flimsiest of foundations – the assertion that because science has not yet found selectable functions for the components of a certain structure, it never will. In the final analysis, as the claims of intelligent design fall by the wayside, its advocates are left with a single, remaining tool with which to battle against the rising tide of scientific evidence. That tool may be effective in some circles, of course, but the scientific community will be quick to recognize it for what it really is – the classic argument from ignorance, dressed up in the shiny cloth of biochemistry and information theory. The full article can be found Here. Honestly, I suggest you find a minute to read it, avo. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,08:26    Quote The full article can be found Here Honestly, I suggest you find a minute to read it, avo. Just to be clear: you know, don't you, that that's the very article Avo thinks she is critiquing? (I think.) -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,08:34    Oh. errrm, no, I guess I had lost track. But I see no evidence that she understood what she read, if indeed it's what she's responding to. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,09:28    Avo wrote: Quote (Unfortunately, that argument [that E. coli's flagellum evolved from the type III secretory system, or a precursor thereof] is now obsolete, being largely abandoned in favor of the idea that the Type III system is actually devolved from the flagellum instead. Mike Gene’s reasons why the Type III is not a precursor was removed for brevity but is available)  I'm not up-to-date on current thinking about flagellum evolution. If there are more recent developments not covered here, for instance, I'll have to read up on them. But it's news to me that the consensus of bacteriologists has shifted to the view that the type III system was derived from the flagellum, and not vice versa. Surely - Avo, having learned from the whole Dawkins/Spetner discussion - surely you're going to cite some reference more compelling than "Mike Gene" said so. Surely, when you say such and such model has been "largely abandoned" - you can cite at least one review of the relevant literature by a relevant scholar of the field to substantiate that claim. Or does "largely" just mean "by 'Mike Gene' and the ID community"? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2006,08:18    Puck, Quote The funny thing Avo, is that in this case we all know what cards we have and what hands we are trying to achieve.  You cannot provide either of those details when trying to calculate the complexity of life.  I suppose you could specify the current state of all life, but why deny alternate paths?  That would be like artificially increasing your odds by requiring that the hands are dealt in numerical order. Well, essentially, you are saying that life could have evolved successfullyi n myriad ways. That may or may not be true. According to books like Nature's Destiny, that is not really true. Also, it is not simply a matter of finding a working combo. Life as it is, the cell, when we try to figure out how it could have occurred against the difficulties that it must have surmounted, is difficult to account for. Your argument is better if we speak of some specific protein with its hundreds of amino acids - there might be several other ways it could have been put together to solve its task. Russell, Yesterday I went to the bookstore and read through the pages 160-162. Dawkins point was indeed clear enough to me, since he did the calculation and even called it a dealion. So, as I said I would, I have written to Spetner's publisher, who will forward my letter. I do note, however, that you have called Spetner malicious, and I find this a recurring theme in your assessments of various ID authors. I do not see it that way. It is difficult for me to understand how Spetner could have missed what Dawkins wrote, and it sure looks like he skimmed the important part, but it hardly seems safe to make so obvious a blunder when criticizing a well-known work just bcause you feel malicious. Incidentally, Spetner cut Dawkins more slack than I did. He simply said Dawkins made a common mistake. At the same time, as I watch the two factions speak ill of one another on UD and ATBC, it still seems to me that the level of paranoia is higher here. Then again, the new thread over there about Roe vs Wade is pretty disheartening and I think I am about to just crawl into a cave somewhere and take a break from human nature. CJ, Quote The corollary for ID is that our ignorance is total and irremediable. A call for the non-explanation that is IDCreationism. Goddidit. Well if you take it that way of course it is annoying. I think that the desire to know and to analyze is far too strong in humans for them to give up trying to figure out how it was done, regardless of whether there is a God or not. And then too, there could be just as many or even more forever unanswerable questions about how evolution happened via the NDE scenario. Renier, Quote Ah, RM + NS is your ONLY problem then? I think so. I think the fossil record is inadequate, evidence points away from gradualism. Life forms are absolutely connected in some fundamental way, yet I am unconvinced as to how. I didn't get the bit about garter snakes should have venom genes. I realize limited time is a problem to show useful mutations that lead to new species, but I find merit in the arguments against mutation as a serious organizational force. And I find it ironic that the mechanism of evolution should be the same one that calls forth some of the greatest intelligence of the cell to avoid. Quote I see now.  What Dembski says about ID to a religious group doesn't matter, but if Dawkins professes a philosophical statement, then evolution is atheistic.  Nice double standard you've got going there. If Dawkins made a separate case of his atheism and spoke openly of his worldview only to atheist club meetings, it would be the same as what Dembski does. Dembski sees the difference between what is a scientifically viable statement to make versus one that is his inner worldview. That he hopes they do indeed coincide is only rational. Dawkins makes no secret that his atheist worldview is part of his evolution outlook. I cannot be sure but I think he has made statements to the effect that if (his) evolution theory is truly understood, it leaves no room for God and I happen to agree. *** The thing is, the antievolution arguments have not been discarded, and it doesn't matter how old they are. But if they put the Bible first, that's a problem. Quote I would expect them (at the bare minimum) to come up with some hypotheses and some tests of those hypotheses.  Care to enlighten us as to what any of those are?  What you are doing is making an a priori assumption that god exists and has designed us, and then you magically see the design that god did. Well, I certainly think that they have done so. Again, you are assuming that the belief in God obligates seeing design, but that is not true for everyone so I don't think it is a strong argument. Quote I was asking you if their egos are to blame for the fact that humans and chimps (and all mammals for that matter) share such genetic similarities. Is the problem with our egos a result of animal nature? Probably. Not every one who doubts Darwinism thinks every life form was independently created. You know, there are certain body languages used by chimps that are used by humans, and the Catholic church comes to mind. The alpha males gets his hand kissed by the subservient males (not sure about females). The beta males show subservience by adopting a bottom-up posture - again a frequent one in religious as well as reverence-for-king postures required in civilized societies.  So far as I know, and this is very interesting, hunter-gather and other noncivilized societies never engage in that throwback behavior. It is highly undignified to grovel and tribal type peoples would be disgusted to engage in it. And I have a theory about this: civilization represents a psychic trauma from which we have not recovered (and I hope we are going to recover). Because of this psychic trauma, we are confused and are engaging in behaviors that are really very primitive.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2006,08:43    Quote I do note, however, that you have called Spetner malicious, and I find this a recurring theme in your assessments of various ID authors. I did? Where did I do that once, let alone as a "recurring theme"? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2006,11:34    Avo.... thank you for apologizing.  It seemed rather honest, but dont chase after Russel for attack Spetner.  Either Spetner was horribly negligent or intentionally malicious.  I would like to err on the side of caution, and assume he was just negligent, however, Spetner should still be chastised heavily. Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 24 2006,08:18) Quote I would expect them (at the bare minimum) to come up with some hypotheses and some tests of those hypotheses.  Care to enlighten us as to what any of those are?  What you are doing is making an a priori assumption that god exists and has designed us, and then you magically see the design that god did. Well, I certainly think that they have done so. Again, you are assuming that the belief in God obligates seeing design, but that is not true for everyone so I don't think it is a strong argument. You do realize that you never actually answered his question. We all know that you think the ID crowd has done some actual scientific work....the problem is that you cannot give us examples.  I am entertaining the hope that you still know what the terms "objective" and "open-minded" mean.  A lot of great scientific revolutions have originally met with harsh criticism and doubt; but they all eventually produced so much evidence, and such strong evidence that the scientific community was forced to accept the new ideas.  They didnt rely on public opinion and social moods. So...pony up and start LISTING  some hypotheses and the objective scientific tests of these hypotheses. You already admit that random mutation and natural selection can be proven.  You just believe that they are being used too liberally to explain all of biological development.  Fair enough....but you had better provide something that is just as good at explaining the evidence and just as testable as our current theories.  Then IDers need to prove that it does an even better job of explaining the evidence. So...what are the hypotheses? how do we test them? how do the hypotheses do a better job of explaining evidence than current theory? I have heard several times that ID is about design detection and not a theory on biological diversity.  That sounds great. So...in what other systems has ID been tested? Can ID detect design in "known" tests? If I was to present William Dembski with two 1,000,000,000 digit long binary numbers could he determine which one had randomly occured and which one had been "designed"? How would he determine which one was designed? I would ask Bill Dembski myself, but he has banned several people for asking that question.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2006,17:02    Re "evidence points away from gradualism." But "gradual" is relative. What's very gradual relative to recorded history can be very sudden relative to geologic eras. Henry

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2006,08:36    "evidence points away from gradualism" He may just be mentioning the classic punctuated equilibrium stuff.  The fact that we dont see smooth and steady progression from one organism to another, but rather "steps" from each previous organism.  Im not really sure what he is talking about though because he has a tendency to "say something" and then not explain, provide examples, or give evidence for what he is talking about. He kinda reminds me of a lot of bar arguments.  That guy your talking to read somewhere, something that is relevant to his argument.  He just cant remember what it was, where it was, or how exactly it helped his argument.  Normally, when you finally get around to figuring out what he is talking about....it is either nonsense, or it doesnt really have anything to do with the conversation at hand. i.e. we wasted almost 2 days trying to figure out the whole Spetner/Dawkins debacle. Quote Well, essentially, you are saying that life could have evolved successfullyi n myriad ways. That may or may not be true. According to books like Nature's Destiny, that is not really true. Also, it is not simply a matter of finding a working combo. Life as it is, the cell, when we try to figure out how it could have occurred against the difficulties that it must have surmounted, is difficult to account for. Your argument is better if we speak of some specific protein with its hundreds of amino acids - there might be several other ways it could have been put together to solve its task. First....how does "Nature's Destiny" know that life could not have evolved in a different way?  Have they tried?  All that they can say is that in all of our research we have never seen life evolve in a different way. Second, all of these statistical analyses of life are incredibly dishonest.  Why do you believe that only "fringe" scientists do these sorts of calculations?  Honest mathematicians and scientists know that these calculations are bogus.  These statistics take way too many liberties with the numbers and make far too many assumptions.  It is interesting to see the numbers they come up with....but it is hardly scientific. Issac Newton was a brilliant scientist.  He had a way of realizing the physical world that was simply brilliant.  He also researched ancient religious texts heavily and decided that Jesus was not divine, based on the accounts of several people. Why am i mentioning this? Issac Newton never claimed that he had scientifically proven the non-divinity of Jesus.  He may  have used the "scientific method", and he may have had a great deal of evidence.  He realized, however, that he was basing his decision largely off of unfounded assumptions.  Assumptions that could not be evaluated objectively.  Learn a lesson from Newton, and realize that Dembski and his crowd are frauds.

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,22:28    Avo. You noted we seemed paranoid of ID. Ask yourself why. Because ID is a fundamentalist Christion wedge to indoctrinate children. That's all it is, nothing more and nothing less. I used to be a fundie, and I know how these people (IDiots) think. I can smell it a mile away. You appear to be a sincere person, and that's great. Remember, people can be very sincere, but sincerely wrong. At least it seems like you are willing to do your homework on the subject. RM+NS might not be perfect, but it is the best we got by far. I don't know, but if I was a god, then creating a system like evolution would seem to me the most intelligent and exciting thing to do. ID people say God is still tinkering in evolution. Science says that is an assumption that is not backed by evidence. The God that still has to do fixes and tinkering cannot be almighty. It's like a vehicle that requires a lot of maintenance. But to make a vehicle that betters itself all the time, adapts to the environment, requires no maintenance, now THAT is what I call awesome. That's why people like Miller have no problem, being religious and knowing evolution to be true. Bottom line, science is a method, not a search for the divine. You want to make it a search for the divine, but no matter how much you want it, you are barking up the wrong tree. Imagine I am a computer programmer. I search for the divine or try to validate the divine in my daily work. But, I work for a financial company. How can my code (search for divine) benefit that company? I will get fired, for various reasons. Crappy code, too much code, slow code, useless code. See, my that mark that I must hit is not to search for the divine, but to write good financial systems. The mark that science aims for is not the divine or supernatural. Assumptions on supernatural would kill our search for knowledge of nature. Goddidit is lazy, an easy way out. Now, what evidence/facts etc do you require to "believe" that Evolution is real and ID is just religious dogma in a clown suit?

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,01:28    Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 24 2006,14:18) Quote I see now.  What Dembski says about ID to a religious group doesn't matter, but if Dawkins professes a philosophical statement, then evolution is atheistic.  Nice double standard you've got going there. If Dawkins made a separate case of his atheism and spoke openly of his worldview only to atheist club meetings, it would be the same as what Dembski does. Dembski sees the difference between what is a scientifically viable statement to make versus one that is his inner worldview. That he hopes they do indeed coincide is only rational. Dawkins makes no secret that his atheist worldview is part of his evolution outlook. I cannot be sure but I think he has made statements to the effect that if (his) evolution theory is truly understood, it leaves no room for God and I happen to agree. And you have this thing bass ackwards.  Dawkins says that evolution "allows" one to be an atheist.  You can not make the same claim of ID.  Now, which one is able to make a scientifically viable statement? I still see this as a double standard.  Dembski teaches that science and Christ are completely intertwined, inseparable.  Yet, you take his word for it that he can separate the science and theology, even though his "science" is dependent on his theology.  Dawkins' science is not dependent on theology, else Miller would not be able to say that he accepts evolution.  What personal philosophy Dawkins exhibits does not change this fact. Quote The thing is, the antievolution arguments have not been discarded, and it doesn't matter how old they are. But if they put the Bible first, that's a problem. So, you believe that there are good arguments that the Earth is only 6000-10000 yrs. old? Quote Well, I certainly think that they have done so. Again, you are assuming that the belief in God obligates seeing design, but that is not true for everyone so I don't think it is a strong argument. First of all, please enlighten us as to which they are. Second, you again have it backwards.  I've been arguing that belief in ID obligates belief in god.  The fact that I pointed to Ken Miller earlier as one who believes in god and also accepts evolution makes your statement ludicrous.  YOU are the one who has continually said that Miller must be a confused IDer because he can't believe in god and accept evolution.  YOU are the one who is pushing for god belief obligating belief in ID, not me. Quote Is the problem with our egos a result of animal nature? Probably. Not every one who doubts Darwinism thinks every life form was independently created. You know, there are certain body languages used by chimps that are used by humans, and the Catholic church comes to mind.... Nice story.  Now, answer my question.  You made the statement to the effect that people cling to evolution because their egos get in the way.  Is it our egos that account for the genetic similarities we see between us and apes, or other mammals.  In other words, it is not ego that caused these things to be fact.  It is fact that we have significant genetic similarities to apes, other mammals, even further down the line.  Ego has nothing to do with it. Oh, and will you stop using the word "gradualism" without defining what you mean by it?

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,03:36    From recent postings at JAD's blog: Quote    JAD,    Fair enough on the spiritual question. I used to spend time at a couple of philosophy forums, and I am used to taking people's metaphysical positions seriously.    When you say you've rejected the fundamentalist position, I am not sure what you mean. Special creation? I ask this because as you have pointed out yourself, no one really has much of an idea about the 'how.'    Yes, it may be true that I can't reason with the PT crowd. The whole thing is quite eerie really. Russell reads Darwin's Black Box and thinks, "you've got to be kidding." I read Miller's answer to the flagellum problem and think "you've got to be kidding." I read Berlinski's coup de grace on the fish eyes rebuttals and think "can I get a sperm sample from this man?" They read it and call it a "bumbling attempt."    There's something fascinating going on.    I guess I'll come see what ISCID is about.    7:42 PM avocationist said...    Thanks for telling me about ISCID. I like it.    I'm sorry for the stupid question, but can you explain why you say chromosomal rearrangemenats cause evolution but not allelic changes? Since chromosomes contain many genes, what do you really mean by rearranging them? Are you simply saying that wholesale chunks of changes would be coordinated together as opposed to little bits at a time?    9:13 PM JohnADavison said...    avocationist    We see only that portion of the genome that happens to be turned on at a given time. The chromosome is a "reaction system" not just a row of genes acting independently. When chromosomes are expermentally or naturally rearranged, certain genes are turned on, others silenced. I recommend you read Goldschmidt who was the first to reject the particulate gene as having any significance in evolution. Also there are definitely preferred regions in which chromosomes are likely to undergo rearrangements. I mentioned some of this in my PEH paper. That is a rapidly growimg literature and everything that is being revealed pleads against randomness and for predetermination.    You just have to purge your mind of the mistaken notion that allelic genes ever had anything to do with evolution. They didn't and they don't. One can accumulate all the mutants in the world and the species remains discrete and identifiable.    I have a Dachshund named Otto, named after Otto Schindewolf. He has short legs but a normal torso exactly as does a human achondroplastic dwarf and for the same reasons. The dwarf remains a human and Otto remains a dog. We are all very similar genetically. Our differences are largely due to which genes are turned on and which turned off. It is the structure of our chromosomes that determines these differences.    There is no doubt in my mind that everything in the organic world resulted from predestined forces that unfolded from within over the millions of years when evolution was actively proceeding. Each step in that process was instantaneous, discrete and irreversible exactly as in the development of the individual. Evolution is no longer in progress and to assume that it is is without foundation.    Gradualism, natural selection and allelic mutation, none of these ever had anything to do with creative evolution. They are all figments of an atheist inspired imagination. I have said all this many times and it falls on deaf ears, ears that Einstein recognized as deaf to the "music of the spheres."    I am happy to see you are back. Now will you review some of my recent posts and consider transmitting them over to the Bunker? it seems Falan Ox has run out of gas after doing as I asked only once. I don't see how they can ban you for doing that and it means a great deal to me to be able to force those poor misguided brain-washed Phillistines into the realization that they have wasted their lives chasing a phantom. If I can goad them into a state of communication and recognition I can destroy them with their own words. Of that I am certain. The Darwimps continue to practice the same old technique they have employed from the beginning. They have no critics. They must not and accordingly do not. It is as simple as that.    It is hard to believe isn't it?    In the meantime:    "Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."    Albert Einstein    "Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it stems from the same source.... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."    ibid    Thanks for posting.    10:22 PM JohnADavison said...    avocationist    You ask if I have rejected God. Absolutely not. I have assumed one or more Gods. Someone or something had to write the programs. Those are my Gods. I call that God in the singular the Big Front loader in the Sky (BFL) for short. What I have rejected and still do reject is the fundamentalist notion of a personal God just as Einstein and Grasse did. If such a God exists I regard it as a bonus and nothing more. I also feel that the notion of two Gods is well within the province of religious dogma. What is Lucifer but a fallen angel anyway? Aren't angels Gods of sorts?    I regard Dichard Rawkins as an instrument of Satan and, like Satan, he has his legions of faithful followers too just as the Fundies have theirs. It is the eternal battle over how man is to regard his position in the universe. Is he an accident or is he the product of a plan? I am convinced he was planned and the plan has been executed and finalized. There is no better proof of this than the silence with which my challenge has been met to name a single mammalian genus more recent than Homo and a member of that genus younger than ourselves.    If I may wax mystical for a moment and please don't take me seriously maybe, and that is a big maybe, that is the true significance of the last words presumably spoken from the cross:    "It is finished."    I sure would like to think so. Wouldn't anyone?    So on that inspiring note let's return to the hard-headed world of bench science where absolutely nothing is being revealed today to support the biggest joke in the history of science, Darwinian evolution, the evolution that never was.    Incidentally, this one would be a natural for transmission to the Bunker don't you think? I sure would appreciate it.    Thanks for posting. I wonder if you guys aren't being a bit hard on Avocationist. I seem to see a genuine desire for understanding, but maybe I'm just a sentimental old softie.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,12:54    Hello again, You know I worked a lot this weekend and it is hard to keep up. Puck, you ask if I could tell something is designed if I was unfamiliar with it. We are familiar with what sorts of things we design, so even when we dredge up some unexpected artifact from the sea, we realize an ancient civilizaiton was repsonsible. But I think even on a strange planet we would be able to recognize the hallmarks of design. The idea behind IC is that there is not a gradual pathway which can lead to it. The gradual pathway is what Darsinists have generally expected will lead to complex organs. The Nelson-Pilger (sp?) paper was about just that, a slow and gradual improvement of light sensitive tissue into an eye. The whole time, it was a seeing organ. But people have brought up the possibility of co-option, at least of some of the components of the flagellum, and Behe (I think I am right here) has accepted this as another explanation but he refutes it is also being extremely unlikely. I think perhaps I can find the relevant part of his book, or if it is not in the book perhaps it is in the Dembski paper. Also, there is a later Dembski paper called IC revisited. I don't think anyone expects an actual pathway to be proved, but rather for one to be proposed that looks workable. I am not understanding why the existence of the Type 3 system makes the flagellum non-IC. Russell, You say we have observed random mutation and natural selection. What random mutations have we observed that were useful? How does a random mutation series turn itself into a well-coordinated redesign of a body plan? How do small mutations leading to better sight also manage to randomly mutate the needed nerve pathways and brain and skull reformations? Natural selection isn't a positive but a negative. Nothing is selected, but some don't make the grade. Natural selection is another way of saying that only what works will work. We could no more live without natural selection than we could live without the pain response. The problems with assuming micromutations lead to wholesale redesign into new species is that it is simply difficult to envision that level of coordination to a random process fraught with mostly failure. And I still find it odd that while as Mayr says, mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, life forms exert their utmost efforts to prevent exactly that. Evolution scientists have noted that the norm for a species is stasis. Chris, Did I miss an earlier post about co-option? I am interested in understanding how people think this works. GCT, Buying into the arguments for design does not mean one has an a priori assumption of God. Some people simply see a problem with the whole NDE ball of wax, or perhaps they just have too much personal incredulity, but the God part doesn't come first, and they may remain agnostic. I never said science should search for God. I said that science should acknowledge that there is the possibility that God exists, and if so, it changes all equations.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,14:48    Quote Behe ... has accepted [co-option] as another explanation but he refutes it is also being extremely unlikely. Saying, "I think it's extremely unlikely" does not amount to "refuting". Quote What random mutations have we observed that were useful? I don't know about you, but I've observed many virus mutations that allow a virus to better cope with different hosts, different metabolic conditions, particular drugs, particular antibodies...  happens all the time. If it didn't, drug resistance in HIV wouldn't be a problem. Quote How do small mutations leading to better sight also manage to randomly mutate the needed nerve pathways and brain and skull reformations? Are you being quite serious here? Evolution is an iterative process. Mutations build on one another. If one mutation leads to better vision, that presumably is beneficial in and of itself. Subsequent mutations leading to more brain development capable of using the better vision then become favorable, etc. Also, did you know that skull formation is responsive to brain formation? There are in fact mutations that result in severely limited brain development (microcephaly). Guess what! In those cases, you don't develop a normal skull with a tiny brain rattling around in it; the skull forms during fetal development in response to the forming brain. Quote I am not understanding why the existence of the Type 3 system makes the flagellum non-IC. It demonstrates the one system is almost certainly related to the other by the process of "co-option" that Behe has "refuted" by declaring it unlikely. (Personally, I don't have an opinion about which, if either, is more "primitive"; I suspect they both evolved from a still  less complex system. But the point stands: an evolving system can have a series of  selectable functions without the "final" function being selected from the very beginning.) By the way: you forgot to point out where I called Spetner "malicious". -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,16:17    Re "But I think even on a strange planet we would be able to recognize the hallmarks of design." I'm not sure what a hallmark is, outside of greeting cards, but I think what people recognize (when they do) is signs of manufacturing - markings on the object of study, debris left from tool use, or shapes that we've come to expect to see in things we already know to have been manufactured by somebody. Biological entities, on the other hand, are "manufactured" to start with by their ancestors, and later by their own cells. Re "The whole time, it was a seeing organ." Methinks that was exactly the point. A very limited seeing "organ" was incrementally improved. Re "Natural selection is another way of saying that only what works will work." I think that omits a critical aspect of the process - mutations increase the number of heritable varieties present in the species (producing new varieties that weren't there before), and occasionally some of those work better than others at producing offspring. (On a side note, I sometimes wonder if focusing the discussion on individual mutations doesn't somewhat miss the point.) Henry

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,17:38    I just spent way too much time seeking the spot where the word malicious was used. JAD asks a couple of questions and I have seen him mention this elsewhere as well, and since he often asks to have his posts transmitted here, I'll throw it out because I wonder what sort of answer would be approptiate. Quote Kazmer You don't have to convince me. I believe the whole business was planned from the very beginning or beginnings and that man is the terminal product of a planned and now terminally executed scenario. The best evidence for this resides in the silence with which my following challenge has been met, the several times I have presented it. Name a single mammalian genus younger than the genus Homo and a single member of that genus more recent than ourselves. A second challenge has also not been met. Pick any two species, living or dead, and provide the proof that one is ancestral to the other. We do not see "evolution in action" as the Darwinians continue blindly to maintain. We see only the immutable products of a long past evolution, just as Linnaeus and Cuvier both understood long before Darwin. That evolution had nothing to do with chance, nothing to do with allelic mutation, nothing to do with sexual reproduction and nothing to do with the environment generally. It unfolded from within those relatively few organisms which linked one step in the ascending scenario to the next. There is no evidence that such organisms are still extant. By gradualism, I mean that many small steps slowly lead to diversification of species and creation of novel structures. Quote If I was to present William Dembski with two 1,000,000,000 digit long binary numbers could he determine which one had randomly occured and which one had been "designed"? How would he determine which one was designed? Well what do you mean by designed. If you simply made up a number and called it designed but it didn't do anything, then of course he couldn't. If your number, however, was a specific set of information that accomplished something complex, and if Dembski were able to discern the relation of the number to some sort of task or other form of meaningful information (there being the possibility that he could not decode it and therefore it would continue to appear random to him) then yes, he could. The thrust of the Nature's Destiny book is to look at, for example, the table of elements, and consider what certain of them do, such as water or carbon, and see if any other candidates can fill the roles and they can't. We live in the best of all possible worlds.   Oh, I'm previewing my post and I see you'll fry me for calling water an element. You get the idea. Renier, What sort of fundie were you, and how did you change? If you think those guys are fundies, then do you think there are Christians who are not fundie? 'Cause they don't seem fundie to me. Well, some of them are. CGT, Quote And you have this thing bass ackwards.  Dawkins says that evolution "allows" one to be an atheist.  You can not make the same claim of ID.  Now, which one is able to make a scientifically viable statement? If that were the only statement Dawkins made, you'd be right. I think he says more than that. There is nothing nonvalid about the statement that a system was most likely designed and not random. You have a good point that it is hard to separate one's science from religious or worldview. But you think Dawkins science is unchanged by it whereas Dembski's is. I don't agree. What seems to be going on here is that there is a great acceptance within the evo community (and indeed far more than I had expected) of theistic or deistic beliefs, so long as they are kept within a certain perspective. What I am saying is that ultimately either Dawkins is right and there is nothing but self-organizing matter, or the deck was stacked. Because if there is a supreme being of any sort then this alters reality at its very outset. Renier and Miller prefer a remote God who is separate from a system that he set up. I would have no argument with that as a possibility except it doesn't appear to be quite true - I don't see the system as being capable of evolving life all by itself, and from a mystical standpoint, a personal and limited God who resides in some particular spot but not in other spots isn't philosophically valid. In other words, I am arguing that all the cosmos is of an underlying unity. Quote So, you believe that there are good arguments that the Earth is only 6000-10000 yrs. old? What??? I have not looked into the age of earth arguments whatsoever and have no opinion. I am pretty sure that it isn't 10,ooo years old because the only persuasion which would think so is Biblical (dont know about koran, but I consider Islam a conflation of several local traditions extant at the time) and the possibility of the Bible being literally accurate is surely less than zero. It seems to me you argued I believe in ID because I believe in God. I pointed out that people can believe in God and accept evolution. Therefore it is not so that I must be accepting ID due to my belief in God. As to why Miller is a confused IDist, that is simply because while he definitely accepts a system similar to the one Renier described for us, nonetheless we are in a very different ballgame if there is a God than if there isn't one. Dawkins' reality is not Miller's. It is bizarre to be confused on that. Quote You made the statement to the effect that people cling to evolution because their egos get in the way.  Is it our egos that account for the genetic similarities we see between us and apes, or other mammals.  In other words, it is not ego that caused these things to be fact.  It is fact that we have significant genetic similarities to apes, other mammals, even further down the line.  Ego has nothing to do with it. I meant to say that ego gets in the way in human relations in many ways, including clinging to ideas with more than just facts for motivation. The genetic similarity between us and chimps is exxagerated I am sure, but whatever it takes to alter us from chimps to human is what it takes, nothing less and nothing more. Just the fact that we don't even have the same number of chromosomes would seem to refute the 99% estimate. I think the estimate in the end will be more like 95 or 96%. The whole chimp thing has little meaning to me. It's a code made up of the same stuff, arranged differently. You mght as well get upset that the same alphabet was used to produce Lolita as the Nancy Drew mysteries. We are made of the same stuff and the same code as squid. The whole planet is made of star stuff. We aren't chimps, we are the gods of this planet and it's time we started acting like it.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,18:48    Avo You used a term that suddenly striked me as very, very, very odd. You referred to the deck "being stacked".  Interesting. I pose a question to you.... Could you tell the difference between a deck I had stacked and a random deck? Since a deck of cards could randomly exist in any order at all, then there is no way to determine that the deck is "stacked".  It could have been shuffled properly, and still wound up in that order.  You might assume that I am cheating, because I got 4 Aces on the first draw....but you couldnt actually know that I was cheating. This is basically the problem with ID(philosophy) and ID(science).  ID(philosophy) thinks that the deck is stacked; ID(science) claims to be able to prove that the deck is stacked. Quote Well what do you mean by designed. If you simply made up a number and called it designed but it didn't do anything, then of course he couldn't. If your number, however, was a specific set of information that accomplished something complex, and if Dembski were able to discern the relation of the number to some sort of task or other form of meaningful information (there being the possibility that he could not decode it and therefore it would continue to appear random to him) then yes, he could. Hmmm, thats not what Dembski says, he simply says that if the pattern of numbers is complex enough, that it proves design.  I do not believe that Dembski has any new relationship with respect to biological organisms.  He simply calculated that their chance of existence was too rare to be random. You might want to write to Dembski and get a better explanation of his math.  Your answer for detecting design seems very rational, however, it is not the one that Dembski used. Quote As to why Miller is a confused IDist, that is simply because while he definitely accepts a system similar to the one Renier described for us, nonetheless we are in a very different ballgame if there is a God than if there isn't one. Dawkins' reality is not Miller's. It is bizarre to be confused on that. The reason you think that Miller is a confused IDist is because you confuse ID(philosophy) with ID(science).  Miller actually believes in ID(philosophy). You also seem to want us to either acknowledge God, or acknowledge that there might be a God.  The only help I can offer you in this particular regard is to read the works of  Siddhartha Gautama.  The nature of God is unimportant, so is the question of his existence.  It is an unanswerable question that you will waste your life exploring.  You should divert that energy towards making yourself a better person. In other words....it doesnt matter....if we acknowledge God, or His possibility of existence.  It doesnt change anything.  Your right, if God exists, then all of science is probably wrong; but God seems to either allow things to continue to hold up to natural laws....or he doesnt exist.  Either way, natural laws seem to exist, and they seem to be observable....so lets stick with the natural laws and ignore God when dealing with natural laws. Quote I meant to say that ego gets in the way in human relations in many ways, including clinging to ideas with more than just facts for motivation. The genetic similarity between us and chimps is exxagerated I am sure, but whatever it takes to alter us from chimps to human is what it takes, nothing less and nothing more. Just the fact that we don't even have the same number of chromosomes would seem to refute the 99% estimate. I think the estimate in the end will be more like 95 or 96%. The whole chimp thing has little meaning to me. It's a code made up of the same stuff, arranged differently. You mght as well get upset that the same alphabet was used to produce Lolita as the Nancy Drew mysteries. We are made of the same stuff and the same code as squid. The whole planet is made of star stuff. We aren't chimps, we are the gods of this planet and it's time we started acting like it. Oh my God...... That is wrong...so very wrong. The similarities between humans and chimps is not exaggerated, nor is it based on the fact that we are all "made up of the same stuff".  I like your book analogy....but you completely misused it.  The similarities between chimps and humans are not bit by bit comparisons.  It consists of large chunks of identical code.   Why do you people think that it is so obscene that chimps and humans are related?  You admit that a Rottweiler and a Pomeranian both evolved from the same original species.....despite drastic differences between the two, yet you cannot imagine that a human and a chimp are close relatives?   My God, are you telling me that Rottweilers and Pomeranians have more in common that Chimps and humans?

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,22:05    Careful, PuckSR, you are being watched! Quote What I find most amusing is that this guy PuckSR has actually claimed that humans amd chimps are more closely related than are Rottweilers and whatever the other dogs were, let's say Chihuahuas shall we. You tell this illiterate Darwimpian mystic that all dogs are wolves and are exactly the same species as proved by the fact that they all produce fertile hybrids with each other and with the wolf and the coyote too. You may also tell him why they are all the same species. It is because their karyotypes are basically identical and all the differences that they exhibit are due to Mendelian alleles, none of which ever had anything to do with organic evolution. You see as long as chromosomes can pair properly at meiosis I they will separate to form balanced functional haploid gametes at the end of meiosis. From JAD's own blog.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,01:38    Well, dog races belong to the same species, and diverged from wolves only 12000 years ago IIRC, they can still interbreed. Human and chimp lineages diverged millions of years ago. However, I don't understand JAD's comment: Quote You may also tell him why they are all the same species. It is because their karyotypes are basically identical and all the differences that they exhibit are due to Mendelian alleles, none of which ever had anything to do with organic evolution. You see as long as chromosomes can pair properly at meiosis I they will separate to form balanced functional haploid gametes at the end of meiosis. Does he mean that dog races never evolve the phenotypic differences they show today? And he is referring to a particular barrier in sexual reproduction: gametic compatibility. I think he overestimates the importance of meiosis in speciation. Sure, gametic incompatibility is a particular form of pre-zygotic isolation, but there are many forms of reproductive isolation, including pre-mating and post-zygotic barriers.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,01:54    Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 27 2006,18:54) You know I worked a lot this weekend and it is hard to keep up. Puck, you ask if I could tell something is designed if I was unfamiliar with it. We are familiar with what sorts of things we design, so even when we dredge up some unexpected artifact from the sea, we realize an ancient civilizaiton was repsonsible. But I think even on a strange planet we would be able to recognize the hallmarks of design. Aren't there places in the world where shorelines have been altered and "designed" in order to protect natural habitats as well as human habitats?  Do you think that you or Dembski could walk along those shorelines and tell us what parts were designed, or pick out the "hallmarks of design" in those shorelines?  Without using the map of course.... Quote Buying into the arguments for design does not mean one has an a priori assumption of God. Some people simply see a problem with the whole NDE ball of wax, or perhaps they just have too much personal incredulity, but the God part doesn't come first, and they may remain agnostic. Contrary to what you said, how could one accept design and not accept god?  If one believes in cosmological ID, then it is utterly impossible, because a natural entity would not have the ability to "fine-tune" physics.  Even in biological ID, it is all but impossible.  How did some natural thing (alien, time traveller, etc.) create the flagellum, or anything else without having god-like powers?  How does this happen without any of us noticing? Quote I never said science should search for God. I said that science should acknowledge that there is the possibility that God exists, and if so, it changes all equations. God may exist.  Happy now?  Of course, let's say that we all acknowledge that god may exist.  Does this mean that objects no longer fall at 9.8m/s^2? The fact is that equations are what they are.  We have no way of knowing whether god exists or not.  If god does exist, then why would our equations change?  That just doesn't make sense.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,02:33    Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 27 2006,23:38) We live in the best of all possible worlds.   No, we live in the world we live in.  In order to know that we live in the best of all possible worlds, one has to know what all possible worlds there are and then have some quantitative measure of determining that this one is the best.  I know you put a smiley after it, but it's a typical thought from the ID crowd. Quote If that were the only statement Dawkins made, you'd be right. I think he says more than that. There is nothing nonvalid about the statement that a system was most likely designed and not random. There is nothing nonvalid about that statement, except that you can not produce any scientific evidence for it.  I'm also curious to know what you think the definition of "random" is.  If you think that "random" automatically means "no god" then you are wrong. Quote You have a good point that it is hard to separate one's science from religious or worldview. But you think Dawkins science is unchanged by it whereas Dembski's is. I don't agree. What seems to be going on here is that there is a great acceptance within the evo community (and indeed far more than I had expected) of theistic or deistic beliefs, so long as they are kept within a certain perspective. What I am saying is that ultimately either Dawkins is right and there is nothing but self-organizing matter, or the deck was stacked. Because if there is a supreme being of any sort then this alters reality at its very outset. Renier and Miller prefer a remote God who is separate from a system that he set up. I would have no argument with that as a possibility except it doesn't appear to be quite true - I don't see the system as being capable of evolving life all by itself, and from a mystical standpoint, a personal and limited God who resides in some particular spot but not in other spots isn't philosophically valid. In other words, I am arguing that all the cosmos is of an underlying unity. Yes, the evo community is very accepting of theistic belief, provided that belief does not interfere with the science.  The evo community is also very accepting of atheistic belief, provided that non-belief does not interfere with the science.  The evo community and the broader scientific community accepts both Miller and Dawkins, because their philosophies do not matter when the science is involved.  Dembski is NOT accepted.  I'll let you figure out why. If Dawkins is right or you are right, how will you figure that out with science?  The rest of your paragraph is all about philosophy.  You are trying to back up your "science" with philosophy.  I think you can see the error of that. Also, I'd really like to know how if we all came to some realization that god exists that reality would somehow be altered. Quote What??? I have not looked into the age of earth arguments whatsoever and have no opinion. I am pretty sure that it isn't 10,ooo years old because the only persuasion which would think so is Biblical (dont know about koran, but I consider Islam a conflation of several local traditions extant at the time) and the possibility of the Bible being literally accurate is surely less than zero. Well, that is one of the arguments brought up by the Creationist crowd, and something the IDers have generally refused to take a stand on.  I figured since you spoke about how the Creationist arguments haven't been defeated, that you actually knew what they were. Quote It seems to me you argued I believe in ID because I believe in God. I pointed out that people can believe in God and accept evolution. Therefore it is not so that I must be accepting ID due to my belief in God. As to why Miller is a confused IDist, that is simply because while he definitely accepts a system similar to the one Renier described for us, nonetheless we are in a very different ballgame if there is a God than if there isn't one. Dawkins' reality is not Miller's. It is bizarre to be confused on that. Now, I might start to get a little offended.  I'm offended that you think you can twist the arguments around and not have me notice. It was YOU who said that evolution is atheistic.  Now, you say that people can believe in god and accept evolution? Also, you do believe in ID because you believe in god.  Is it possible to believe in ID and be atheist?  No, it isn't. What is also bizarre is the fact that you somehow think reality is different depending on whether one believes in god or not.  Do objects fall at different speeds depending on god belief?  Are the similarities between chimps and humans at different percentages based on one's god belief?  Does light travel at different speeds based on god belief? Quote I meant to say that ego gets in the way in human relations in many ways, including clinging to ideas with more than just facts for motivation. The genetic similarity between us and chimps is exxagerated I am sure, but whatever it takes to alter us from chimps to human is what it takes, nothing less and nothing more. Just the fact that we don't even have the same number of chromosomes would seem to refute the 99% estimate. I think the estimate in the end will be more like 95 or 96%. The whole chimp thing has little meaning to me. It's a code made up of the same stuff, arranged differently. You mght as well get upset that the same alphabet was used to produce Lolita as the Nancy Drew mysteries. We are made of the same stuff and the same code as squid. The whole planet is made of star stuff. We aren't chimps, we are the gods of this planet and it's time we started acting like it. This has been addressed, so I won't belabor it. I simply want to say 1) that once again you have maligned all evolutionary biologists as egotistical maniacs that can't see anything beyond their bloated heads, and 2) I am not upset that a masterpiece like Lolita shares the same alphabet that pedestrian works like Nancy Drew use, but I'm also not upset by the thought that we share a common ancestor with apes.  But, your explanation seems to say that since we are all made up of "star stuff" that Sol is also one of our cousins. I'm not sure what you mean by "We are the gods of this planet and it's time we start acting like it."  What in the world does that have to do with science?

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,02:33    Quote I just spent way too much time seeking the spot where the word malicious was used. apparently in vain. Is that your version of an apology? Quote The genetic similarity between us and chimps is exxagerated I am sure, and I'm sure that you are sure, and that your certainty is based on... nothing at all. Quote Just the fact that we don't even have the same number of chromosomes would seem to refute the 99% estimate. Oh really? What would you estimate is the similarity between yourself and a human with Down syndrome? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,05:33    Hmmm....apparently I pissed off JAD. The point of mentioning dogs was not to say that humans and chimps are more closely related than different dog species. The point, and I have made it several times, is that humans and chimps are remarkably similiar.  If I was going to choose two animals as examples of how evolution was impossible....chimp/human would be fairly far down the list.  Ignoring the genetic similarities.....they are physically very similiar.  They are also both highly intelligent. They are both social animals.   I frequently hear IDists/Creationists admit that some diversification(microevolution) most likely occured.  Domestic dogs are a fine example of this.  I just cannot comprehend if they admit that a minimal amount of diversification occured...why they cannot admit that two animals that are obviously so similiar are related. Quote What I find most amusing is that this guy PuckSR has actually claimed that humans amd chimps are more closely related than are Rottweilers and whatever the other dogs were, let's say Chihuahuas shall we. You tell this illiterate Darwimpian mystic that all dogs are wolves and are exactly the same species as proved by the fact that they all produce fertile hybrids with each other and with the wolf and the coyote too. All i said Quote Why do you people think that it is so obscene that chimps and humans are related?  You admit that a Rottweiler and a Pomeranian both evolved from the same original species.....despite drastic differences between the two, yet you cannot imagine that a human and a chimp are close relatives?   I never said that chimp/humans are closer related than dogs I never said that they could not copulate. The entire purpose of that statement was as a thinking exercise.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,07:05    Quote Life forms are absolutely connected in some fundamental way, yet I am unconvinced as to how. It's common descent... Does anyone else remember the Citizen Kane skit from Kids in the Hall? Quote Dave: Oh, I saw a great movie last night. It was on the late show. It was-- um, uh, what was it called? It's a classic. It's uh . . . oh, I hate this. I hate it when this happens. Kevin: Well, what was it about? Dave: It's about this newspaper tycoon and he's dead, and everybody is telling stories about him, and-- Kevin: It's Citizen Kane. Dave: Nnnno, that's not it. No, no - but something like that. It's uh . . . Kevin: Okay, who was in it? Dave: Orson Welles is in it. It's called . . . Kevin: Then this is Citizen Kane. It's Citizen Kane. Dave: Nnnno, that isn't it, but you're not far from it. It's uh . . . Kevin: Well who else was in it? Dave: Oh, um, I dunno. Kevin: Was Joseph Cotten in it? Dave: What else has he been in? Kevin: The Third Man, The Magnificent Ambersons . . . Dave: Oh, The Magnificent Ambersons. Yes, yes, yes, he was in it, yes. That's one of my favourite Orson Welles movies. Kevin: Well this is definitely Citizen Kane then. You're talking about Citizen Kane. Dave: Nnnno, no, no. But it's something like that. It's ci . . . ci, ci . . . Si. Si . . . sy . . . -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,10:08    Quote The point, and I have made it several times, is that humans and chimps are remarkably similiar Seems clear enough to me. (Not sure how Davison managed to miss that, but, then, who cares?) Anyway, I wonder: is there any reason why a Martian Linnaeus, say, would assign us to two different genera? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,10:14    ummm....I dont even think that DaveScot could refute that the Martian taxonomy would consider humans/chimps in the same genus. But.....to further your train of thought.....if our friendly martian was conducting field studies.....do you think his initial assumption would be that chimps/humans were able to cross-breed? And when he discovered that this was not possible, he would consider this quirky, rather than seperate them further in his taxonomy?

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,15:42    Re "is there any reason why a Martian Linnaeus, say, would assign us to two different genera?" I read someplace that an objective observer would have put chimp and human in the same genus to start with, but the decision was affected by politics (or do I mean ego?), or something to that effect. Henry

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,05:32    Quote Chris, Did I miss an earlier post about co-option? I am interested in understanding how people think this works. I can't quite remember what I said in my post, it was an earlier one that seems to have gone. I think your question was based on a 'parts in a garage' analogy, which does not capture many important aspects of these systems. A good example of cooption is in the bacterium Sphingomonas chlorophenolica, which is able to digest PCP, which was first introduced into the environment 70 years ago. This process is performed by three enzymes, which were coopted from other metabolic processes by gene duplication. This can happen because although the enzymes are made up of hundreds of amino-acids, the majority of them form a globular structure that serves mainly to hold in place the few amino acids in the binding site of the enzyme that are involved in the chemical reaction. A mutation causing a change in one of these amino acids can have a large effect of the specificity of the enzyme, and of course because it is a duplicate this will have no affect on the fitness of the organism. At the moment the PCP degradation is a very inefficient process, but we would predict that eventually further mutations will increase the efficiency of the enzymes. This process works of course, because these proteins are in solution, and are free to interact at will. Obviously something like the flagellum is a lot more complicated, but this same process seems to have occurred with protein complexes, often due to the duplication of an entire complex.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,06:29    Quote (GCT: ) I'm offended that you think you can twist the arguments around and not have me notice. You know, I honestly don't think Avo notices when she twists the arguments around. This is the fundamental (pun only partially intended) problem with creationist thinking: whatever question you ask, the answer has to conform to the overall precommitment to goddidit. That's also why I want her to track down where she thinks I called Spetner "malicious". I suspect most creationists (and I use the term broadly) are like Avo in this respect: not "malicious", but wishful thinkers whose ability to perceive reality is seriously affected by this fundamental precommitment, to the point where they manage to make such otherwise inexplicable errors as Spetner did in the case we discussed. Thinking that I called Spetner malicious is just another instance of this distorted perception of reality. However, I do think that the Disco Inst crowd (Wells, Dembski, Luskin, Berlinski, et al.) goes beyond mere wishful-thinking driven inadvertance. It's my assessment that they've crossed the line into what can only be called dishonesty. I suspect that has something to do with the fact that for these guys, anti-evolution isn't just an idea or a cause, it's a career. Even with them, though, I doubt it's completely "malicious". Indeed (and you'll think I'm really naive here) I actually believe that erstwhile congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham was, at least in a sense, sincere when he assured the press that the facts would prove those corruption charges baseless - six months before tearfully pleading guilty. As I've often noted, I suspect the most successful used car salesman is the one who manages to convince himself that he is - in some sense - telling the truth. Quote What is also bizarre is the fact that you somehow think reality is different depending on whether one believes in god or not. That, and the fact that she doesn't see that as post-modernism. On co-option (or is the proper term co-optation? I'm not sure): Quote (Chris Hyland: ) A good example of cooption is in the bacterium Sphingomonas chlorophenolica, which is able to digest PCP, which was first introduced into the environment 70 years ago. I think the nylonase story is another great example, if Avo is seriously interested. But I suspect she's not, so I'll hold off on going to the trouble of digging up the links. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Pages: (14) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard