afdave
Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006
|
Quote | If you learned that a car company puts all their money in advertising and publicity, to show how cool their cars are, and NOTHING in research to make them better and safer -in fact, they don't have an R&D department at all- would you buy a car from them? | No, I would not buy the car. And I do realize that ICR has a limited research department and I think AIG and DI probably have none at all ... doesn't matter because the fact is that THE DATA IS THE DATA, regardless of the source. Creationists really don't care a hoot about the beliefs of the guy digging up the fossil or mapping the genome or what have you. What we are interested in is the INTERPRETATION of the data. And we do realize that you need qualified experts in many fields to be able to INTELLIGENTLY analyze the data. At this point in my study of the whole origins debate, it is too early for me to be able to say with strong assurance that ICR and AIG and DI have well qualified experts in many fields. I have assumed they did in past years without drilling into them in great detail. Now that I have begun this very detailed investigation, I have found one major goof (or lie, not sure which yet) by Carl Wieland (the chimp chromosome thing). If I find a lot of these types of wrong information, obviously I will begin to question the reliability of the whole organization, question their motives, etc. This has not yet occurred, but I'm sure you will help me on this quest. That is one reason I am here and not debating over at DI (as someone has suggested).
AF Dave said ...
Quote | It's meaningless for explaining the ORIGIN of immune system. I'm sure its quite meaningful at explaining HOW THE IMMUNE SYSTEM WORKS. |
Faid responded ...
Quote | Um Dave, I dunno what AIG says, but the research presented in the trial was about the evolution of the immune system. |
So let us look at the relevant testimony because this is very important that there be no misunderstanding ...
Quote | Q. We'll get back to that. Now, these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system? A. No, they certainly do not. My answer, or my argument is that the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that. Q. So these are not good enough? A. They're wonderful articles. They're very interesting. They simply just don't address the question that I pose. Q. And these are not the only articles on the evolution of vertebrate immune system? A. There are many articles. Q. Okay. So there's at least fifty more articles discussing the evolution of the immune system? A. And midpoint I am, I certainly haven't had time to look through these fifty articles, but I still am unaware of any that address my point that the immune system could arise or that present in a detailed rigorous fashion a scenario for the evolution by random mutation and natural selection of the immune system. Q. Is that your position today that these articles aren't good enough, you need to see a step-by-step description? A. These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject. Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed? A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions. Q. And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out those? A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful. Q. Origin and Evolution of the Vertebrate Immune System, by Pasquier. Evolution and Vertebrate Immunity, by Kelso. The Primordial Vrm System and the Evolution of Vertebrate Immunity, by Stewart. The Phylogenesis of Immune Functions, by Warr. The Evolutionary Mechanisms of Defense Reactions, by Vetvicka. Immunity and Evolution, Marchalonias. Immunology of Animals, by Vetvicka. You need some room here. Can you confirm these are books about the evolution of the immune system? A. Most of them have evolution or related words in the title, so I can confirm that, but what I strongly doubt is that any of these address the question in a rigorous detailed fashion of how the immune system or irreducibly complex components of it could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection. Q. And the fifty-eight articles, some yes, some no? A. Well, the nice thing about science is that often times when you read the latest articles, or a sampling of the latest articles, they certainly include earlier results. So you get up to speed pretty quickly. You don't have to go back and read every article on a particular topic for the last fifty years or so. Q. And you conclude from them that certain structures are irreducibly complex that could not have evolved through natural selection, and therefore are intelligently designed? A. I conclude from them that we see very detailed molecular machinery in the cell, that it strongly looks like a purposeful arrangement of parts, that in fact a purposeful arrangement of parts is a hallmark of intelligent design. I surveyed the literature and I see no Darwinian explanations for such things. And when one applies one's own reasoning to see how such things would be addressed within a Darwinian framework it's very difficult to see how they would, and so one concludes that one explanation, Darwinian processes, doesn't seem to have a good answer, but that another explanation, intelligent design, does seem to fit better. |
After reading through this, I think my statement above is valid, but could be stronger and more clear, so let me add to it.
The stack of 50+ books are meaningless for explaining the ORIGIN of immune system. I'm sure they quite meaningful at explaining how the immune system works and I'm sure they are quite full of SINCERE ATTEMPTS to explain the origin of the immune system.
There ... is that better? If you read the testimony above, this is what Behe is saying and I strongly agree with him. Again, let's reiterate what Behe (and I) (and all Creationists) are looking for ...
A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.
Notice also that Behe (and I) think that spending one's time to search for this is, to put it politely as Behe did, UNFRUITFUL. I can think of many other, less polite adjectives to describe the wisdom of attempting such a search, but I'm trying to practice what I preach and be nice, so I will refrain, but you get the idea.
Quote | PS. the question mark in "ID?Creos" was supposed to be a slash, but I like it better that way. "ID? Nah, Creos". | Cute. And I happen to agree with you on this point. And I do have my own version: Evos? Nah, Flat-earthers. :-) Just kidding here. I know everyone here is very intelligent even though I disagree with some of your interpretations.
Renier-- Thanks for the analysis of the Vitamin C issue. You are correct that this requires careful analysis. I will be taking some time to do just that starting with what you have written.
Quote | The reason, Dave is that most people are stupid. Yes, that's right. Stupid. | I would agree that the advent of government involvement in education in Western society has, in fact been a colossal failure. I might take this opportunity to point out, though, that even with private schools, self study, excellent colleges and the like, it appears that much learning does not always yield smarts, unfortunately. Or maybe the better term would be wisdom instead of smarts. There have been many people down through history who had much learning, but did incredibly unwise things or made incredibly unwise statements-- Galileo's opponents being a case in point. I believe--but have not proven yet to my satisfaction (it's still a hypothesis)--that this exact situation exists today with Neo-Darwinists. They have much learning and know many facts and possess much knowledge, but in my opinion are making incredibly unwise statements when they assert that "flippers came from feet" and "we see life because of abiogenesis millions of years ago", etc. This by itself is very unwise, but then to go further and not only assert things which don't make sense to a lot of people, but also vilify others who try to propose alternatives that they honestly feel DO make sense, is INCREDIBLY UNWISE to me. In my opinion, there are hordes of Neo-Darwinists sitting on a very thin branch, with the "saw" of scientific evidence slowly cutting through it, the ID/Creo people are offering an escape ladder, and the ND's are spitting on them.
RICHARD DAWKINS MISIDENTIFIES "DUCKS"
I will repeat my quote of Richard Dawkins because (a) I am NOT "quote mining" (maybe I should just quote the whole chapter?) and (b) it is worth repeating because it drives home my point so well. Dawkins spends an entire chapter on bat echolation in The Blind Watchmaker and then saysQuote | I hope the reader is as awestruck as I am, and as William Paley would have been, by these bat stories. My aim has been in one respect identical to Paley's aim. I do not want the reader to underestimate the prodigious works of nature and the problems we face explaining them. (p. 37) | then he saysQuote | We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. (p. 43) |
This is HUGE and I do not want my readers to miss this. Here is one of "world's most brilliant minds) (according to some vote) spending AN ENTIRE CHAPTER ON A SINGLE WONDER OF NATURE -- Bat Echolocation and admitting that he is "awestruck" and does not underestimate the "prodigious work of nature" and "the problems we face explaining them." After standing in awe of this stuff, he then spends the next 9 chapters telling us why this is not ACTUAL design, but APPARENT DESIGN ... i.e. "It LOOKS like a duck, WALKS like a duck, QUACKS like a duck, but let me spend the next NINE CHAPTERS trying to convince you that it's NOT a duck **cough** **retch** **die**
This is HUGE, folks, and we are just getting started. I will make this prediciton ... there will come a day soon when the name of Darwin and all his disciples, like Richard Dawkins will be relegated to the ashheap of scientists whose theories were wrong and whose name people remember, not for the good they did, but for the prodigious blunder they made.
Glen Davidson ... Quote | We're herd animals, and we are intelligent herd animals for the most part. Afdave **cough** (I meant to say the Neo-Darwinist) illustrates this fact over and over again. |
Quote | Look at Afdave's argument. Clearly it is fallacious by any standard, but it is also carefully drawn (though it was hardly invented by Afdave) to avoid the fact that the only explanation for current and fossil forms of life that has managed to cross borders, religions, ethnic groups, politics, and intellectual inheritances, is evolutionary theory. Russian atheists, American Catholics and mainline Protestants, scientists, intellectuals, Japanese Shintoists (initially, anyhow, though I don't know if Shinto holds up well alongside modern science), Muslim thinkers, Hindus, Jainists, and traditional religionists like native Americans, have all been able to comprehend and accept the evidence for evolution. Herd thought?[YES] | You guessed it, Glen. My thought exactly. (Attention Quote Mine Police: Glen really said "No" -- I'm putting words in his mouth)
Quote | Evolutionary theory is extraordinarily successful by the standards of any startup of a new religion. | Yes. And so was Islam. And your point is? Possibly that this means AF Dave should accept it as true? I see.
Quote | The only universally-acceptable origins-of-life idea is evolutionary theory | never mind the small detail that no one has the slightest idea how it arose. Francis Crick was so perplexed that he proposed "Panspermia".
Chris Hyland ...Quote | Biological systems only trivially appear to be designed. | Trivial? How does this mesh with the fact that Richard Dawkins wrote an ENTIRE BOOK trying to tell people that this stuff IS NOT designed. Answer: A LOT of people think this stuff at least APPEARS designed. To me, this is in no way trivial.
Glen Davidson ... Quote | Well, you're too stupid and ignorant even to respond to my authoritative analysis, moron ... If you ever can make an intelligent remark, please do so, cretin ... There is virtually no chance that you will ever be anything except a stupid and ignorant little ape, Dave. The biggest reason of all is that you only sneer at expertise of all kinds, while clinging to your tiny collection of knowledge as if it were Eternal Truth, as do all bigots. | Wow Glen, if words could kill! Have you found this debating technique to be effective for you?
Quote | However, real scientists do not care a fig about Dawkins' incorrect notions about life "appearing designed", for on the face of it, life does not appear designed. I will grant that it may appear "miraculous" or "spiritual", depending on definitions and contexts, but it does not appear designed. | Are you telling me that Richard Dawkins is not a real scientist?
Quote | The most truly embarrassing thing is that religious apologists like Afdave think that life looks designed like machines. | Why don't you call Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences and tell him he is an embarrasment to you. Here is his quote again ... Quote | We have always underestimated cells . . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein [ba]machines?[/b] Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts (Alberts, Bruce. 1998. The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the NextGeneration of Molecular Biologists. Cell 92 (8 February): 291-94). |
Quote | Do you want medical testing to be done on our relatives, the apes, or would you prefer that it be done on birds? And can you think through the implications of why medical testing is done on monkeys and apes just prior to humans, or are you going to just drivel on in your ignorance and prejudice? | If you read what I wrote, you will see that I acknowledge that human BODIES are very similar to the apes. I even acknowledge that Chromosome 2 in humans does in fact appear to be fused from 2 chromosomes in chimps. But to me it is a different matter then to say definitively that they did in fact fuse. Also, let me reiterate what I have said before that my hypothesis regarding humans and apes is that humans have something additional, something invisible, that is very different from the apes, and that this difference is quite crucial. I will be presenting evidence for this soon.
Norm Doering ... Quote | Meyer doesn't warrant special attention in a search term because his arguments are stolen from old and moldy arguments that were refuted before he made them. Try searching for "Big Bang Argument for the Existence of God," "Teleology," "Prime Mover." | Or maybe the reason is because no one HAS BEEN ABLE to refute him? I searched the archive below and found nothing that refutes Meyer's "Cosmic Fine Tuning" argument. In fact, the article from Talk Origins that I posted does not in any way attempt to refute it. Don't you think this would be the FIRST thing they do if it could be refuted?
Talk Origins Index to Creationist Claims CE400: Cosmology (see also CI300: Anthropic principle) CE401. There are too few supernova remnants for an old universe. CE410. Physical constants are only assumed constant. CE411. The speed of light has changed. CE411.1. Physicists found that the speed of light was once faster. CE412. Gravitational time dilation made distant clocks run faster. (see also CF210: Radiometric dating assumes constant rates.) CE420. The big bang theory is wrong. CE421. The cosmos has an axis, contrary to big bang models. CE425. Red shift comes from light aging, not expansion of the universe. CE440. Where did space, time, energy, and laws of physics come from? CE441. Explosions such as the big bang do not produce order or information.
You are going to have to better than send me off on a Google hunt if you want me to believe that "Cosmic Fine Tuning" has been refuted. Try refuting me point by point with linked support.
Quote | Spacetime, the fabric of the universe isn't really nothing. Look up the term "Casimir effect." | I agree. The term is used by Creationists out of convenience and the need to use SOME word. Maybe we should say "apparent nothing."
Quote | Nothing is explained by proposing an unknown entity with unknown powers. You're explaining the known in terms of the unknown. | Yes, actually it is ... quite well. Remember my example of the native who has never seen an airplane before? He proposes an unknown (the Cessna factory) to explain the new phenomenon (the airplane) in terms THAT HE ALREADY KNOWS (canoes), hence his fairly accurate statement considering his limited observation and experience, "A brilliant sky-canoe maker must have built this!" Would you like more examples?
Quote | Religions, at least those of Judeo-Christian family, must start with a core metaphysical assumption about mind (of an entity with will, planning, intention, foresight and understanding) being the primordial stuff and cause of the universe. | My discussion has nothing to do with religion and I do not consider myself to be religious. I am trying to explain the phenomena in the universe by the most sensible explanations. Religion to me is man made stuffy ritual ... robes, candles, homina-hominas and the like. Would it surprise you to know that I don't think God is religious? Or Jesus either? Well ... that's my opinion.
Quote | Creation myths are teleological and naturalism undermines teleology by finding non-mind, (rules of material interaction without any mind stuff like choice, will or intention coming into play), as an explanation. | There are in fact many creation myths. But my opinion is that there is only one true, earliest, eyewitness account from which all the myths were then derived with various levels of deletions, modifications and embellishments.
Secondly, naturalism only undermines teleology if it explains the evidence BETTER. It is my goal of this exercise to show you that Teleology is in fact the better, more sensible explanation.
Faid said ...Quote | The anthropic principle is examined thoroughly in the very talkorigins page you quoted | Really? Where? Could you cut and paste the section? I looked and did not find it. Also, why would not the author have refuted the section I quoted if he thought he could have?
Quote | As for your "biological machines" argument, this has been demonstrated repeatedly to be based on loaded terms: Labelling living things "machines" to argue that they are designed, presupposes that they are designed. | I propose that the labeling is complained about only by those who have no other way to complain that their view might be questioned, i.e. they don't have anything sensible to counter with, so they have to say crazy things like "your terms are loaded." As for my calling them machines, talk to Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences. He is more of an authority than I. Also, let me correct you ... I do not PRE-suppose design. I PROPOSE design, then test the validity to see if it is the best among competing hypotheses. There is a BIG difference.
Quote | With the same logic, we should argue that those round volcanic rocks were the marbles of giants, because they look like big stone marbles. Now, the reasons those rocks are round are pretty much the same (as far as the fundamental laws of physics are concerned) with the reasons marbles are made round- but that is no proof that they are, in fact, marbles -as I'm sure you agree. | I do agree. But have ever studied the differences between marble/round rocks and biological machines? I don't think you need to study this b/c this is obvious. This is not a valid refutation of my argument.
Eric Murphy ... Quote | Actually, Dave, the differences between humans and chimps, compared to e.g. the differences between humans and bacteria, are practically invisible. Humans are basically taller, balder, weaker, and smarter chimps. I fail to understand why this presents a problem for you.If you want to say there are spiritual differences between a human and chimp that amount to some sort of unbridgeable gulf, that's fine, but you're not talking about science anymore (to the extent you ever were). | The proper definition of science should include trying to explain the phenomena in the universe, where ever that may lead. If it leads us to invisible entities, why is that a problem? Are not quarks invisible and rather abstract and hard to define? Ditto for multiple universes, the Casimir Effect and a host of other things?
Norm quoted someone who said ... Quote | Since then, biologists have proposed gradual, stepwise pathways for all six of those systems. (Behe's supposedly irreducibly complex systems) | Yes. After Behe's book they tried. But even if there were a few before, they were unconvincing attempts. See discussion above RE: Dover testimony. Here's an example of a failed (in my opinion) attempt. You see if YOU think the attempt was successful.
Quote | One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):
a. A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). [How? In detail please. By magic? By what selective pressure? What mutation or transposition of what gene(s)?] Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase [Ditto above questions]that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.
b. The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).
[How? In detail please. By magic? By what selective pressure? What mutation or transposition of what gene(s)?]
c. The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).
[How? In detail please. By magic? By what selective pressure? What mutation or transposition of what gene(s)?]
d. An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.
[How? In detail please. By magic? By what selective pressure? What mutation or transposition of what gene(s)?]
e. The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.
[How? In detail please. By magic? By what selective pressure? What mutation or transposition of what gene(s)?]
f. Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family. |
Do I make my point clear? This is the point Behe was trying to make in the trial. Let me repeat his statement from above ...Quote | A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions...Q. And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out those? A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful. |
improvius quote mined me ... Quote | There is really one really big thing I resent. And that is the idea that humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals. | and left out the last part that said I also believe this to be a factual error. It is true that I get somewhat emotional, but the emotion is generated BECAUSE I believe there is some great error in ND thinking. I've notice some of this emotion going the other direction on this thread as well, have you not? It is understandable on both sides of the debate ... we are human, not rocks, thus we have emotions.
Glen said ... Quote | What Afdave fails to recognize in the area of origins is the importance of establishing proximate causes, of showing how one event causes another one. | What I am doing, Glen, is showing everyone why MY proposed proximate cause makes more sense than YOUR proposed proximate cause for explaining the phenomena in the universe.
Quote | But what we need for any ID hypothesis is a designer who has been shown to design items similar to organisms. | Well, I cannot show Him to you any more than you can show me a fruitfly evolving into a "housefly type insect" or a "foot becoming a flipper."
Quote | This is because animals are very different from machines, even at a cursory glance. | Yes, but the key difference is that they are SO SO SO SO much more sophisticated. Ask Bill Gates ... Quote | DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we ve ever created (The Road Ahead,1996: 228). |
Quote | What is more, we aren't even satisfied with "intelligence" as a "reason" for human-made machines and art, rather we typically appeal to psychology, evolution, and social causation to explain why and how art is made (as in all historical sciences, we can't fully explain Sumerian art, but we can explain important aspects of it). | You're kidding, right? I will let you take this one back if you want to and I won't even bring it up again.
Quote | This brings up an important fact: triumphant IDists would likely impede investigation into what intelligence is and why it is the way that we find it to be--even if only by suggesting that intelligence is some kind of "universal constant" or "law". | Your implication that IDists are not progressive in science? What about Galileo, Newton, Hooke, Brahe, Copernicus and Huygens? They all believed in Design. Were they anti-progressive?
Quote | IDists analogize wildly to God, but then they fail utterly to be able to identify factors, like evolution, that would constrain God's designs. | What? Constrain God's design? Creationists accept Designed Adaptation that you call evolution. Maybe I'm not following you.
Quote | but if we could not find causes of evolution in the genome/environment, we would have to abandon evolution as an explanation. | Yes. I predict this will happen soon.
Quote | Dave doesn't like macroevolution, claiming that it has not "been seen". Since, however, macroevolution is predicted to be produced by largely known mechanisms, therefore to produce the sorts of fossils, nested hierarchies, and genomes that we see, it is fair to say that we have observed it, since we are surrounded by it and are a part of it. | No. You have NOT observed it. You have observed what you THINK is evidence for it, but I will show you in time why this fails.
Quote | No, we do not accept Causes that are not seen to be acting, we accept the mutations and selections of those mutations as the sort of mechanism that evolution demands and requires, both as a science of proximal causes, and as a theory peculiar to biology. | Yes. You DO accept Causes that are not seen to be acting. Again, no one has seen feet evolve into flippers, etc.
Quote | We have our proximate causes, then. The IDists/creationists have no cause at all, but only an analogy that on the face of it appears flawed, and which more tellingly cannot be backed up through evidence for active proximal causes. | No. You don't have your proximate causes, then. You don't even have an analogy. We at least have an analogy from our experience. To me, this is far more scientific.
Quote | If this news turns out to be true, even the shaky foundation Meyer built his argument on is shot down:
'Cyclic universe' can explain cosmological constant [URL=http://www.newscientistspace.com/article....ue]http |
Thanks. I'll check it out.
And with that, I'll leave you with this parting nugget from Talk Origins ...
Quote | Furthermore, we are beginning to understand the possible physical mechanisms for the appearance of matter from nothing [hmmm... seems like Creationists have said something about this before], and for organization without design. | [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html"]
May God bless all of you (including Glen)! And have a great weekend!
-------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|