RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 >   
  Topic: Otangelo's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
fnxtr



Posts: 2604
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2016,13:32   

Also, otangelo, your ignorance is not evidence. Ever.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1510
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2016,13:53   

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 13 2016,13:32)
Also, otangelo, your ignorance is not evidence. Ever.

It's evident, just not evidence.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2016,14:11   

Quote (NoName @ Mar. 13 2016,11:53)
Incredibly improbable things happen All the time.
Improbable does not equal impossible.  Ever.

Asserts facts unsupported by evidence.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10405
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2016,15:27   

Asserts basic understanding of probability.

   
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2016,17:09   

Quote (Otangelo @ Mar. 13 2016,15:11)
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 13 2016,11:53)
Incredibly improbable things happen All the time.
Improbable does not equal impossible.  Ever.

Asserts facts unsupported by evidence.

Really?
You truly have no clue about statistics and probability then.
Probability 0 is impossible.  Any other probability can, by definition, occur.
Improbable does not equal impossible.  Go ahead, provide some evidence that this is wrong.
I present the entire universe and all things in it as evidence of the truth of my claim.  I stand by it until and unless one of you hopeless cretins comes up with some evidence.

Consider a standard contract bridge hand.  Calculate the odds of getting any given hand, in the given order.
You'll be amazed.
Then consider the odds of all the atoms that make up your body actually being the molecules that make up your body rather than any of the other molecules in existence.
Again, you'll be amazed.

What you have to show, and cannot, is that there is some chemical or physical transition in living beings that is impossible, not just improbable.
But there's no magic there.  There's just physics and chemistry.  They suffice.
No matter how incredulous you are, you have quite literally nothing other than your incredulity to support your tawdry little fantasies.

  
Cubist



Posts: 494
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2016,18:43   

Quote (Otangelo @ Mar. 13 2016,10:54)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 12 2016,23:31)
   
Quote (Otangelo @ Mar. 12 2016,22:16)
       
Quote (RumraketR @ Mar. 04 2016,07:29)
It is an observational fact that irreducibly complex systems routinely evolve.

Its a observational fact that you never learn.

Hello, Otangelo! I see that you have, once again, overlooked my two as-yet-unanswered questions. Let's see if making them larger will help you see them:

Do you have any evidence that "intelligent agents" other than human beings have created "information-rich systems"?

What does "new information" look like?

Its enough to infer that  "intelligent agents" other than human beings have created "information-rich systems, based on the facts, that ONLY INTELLIGENT AGENTS ARE ABLE TO CREATE INFORMATION RICH, COMPLEX, SPECIFIED CODES.

Hold it. How do you know that "ONLY INTELLIGENT AGENTS ARE ABLE TO CREATE INFORMATION RICH, COMPLEX, SPECIFIED CODES"? If you're going by what we humans have actual evidence for… and up to now, you have been, explicitly, going by what we humans have actual evidence for… that evidence is not about the unspecific general class 'intelligent agents'; rather, that evidence is about one fairly specific instance of the general class 'intelligent agents', said instance being human beings. So, if you are, indeed, going by what we have actual evidence for, you're saying "ONLY [HUMAN BEINGS] ARE ABLE TO CREATE INFORMATION RICH, COMPLEX, SPECIFIED CODES".

If, on t'other hand, you're not going by what we humans have actual evidence for, you've got some 'splaining to do.

 
Quote
Since DNA stores that kind of information,

So far, so good…

 
Quote
and evidently it were not humans creating it,

Yes…

 
Quote
[we can infer] that there is other intelligence around beside us.

Wrong-o, Zombie Lips! If a given thing cannot have been created by human beings, we can infer that whatever-it-is must have been created by something else; absent any information about the nature of that "something else", we cannot infer that that "something else" was an intelligent agent.

So… your answer to "Do you have any evidence that 'intelligent agents' other than human beings have created 'information-rich systems'?" is Nope, I sure don't have any such evidence. Okay, I won't ask you that question again unless you retract your answer.

Alas, still no answer to the question "What does 'new information' look like?"

  
Henry J



Posts: 4818
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2016,22:15   

Maybe it's like old information, but with a "wet paint" sign?

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2016,19:18   

The key process that produces oxygen in the atmosphere is due to the oxygen-evolving complex (OEC) , which splits water molecules and subsequently releases molecular oxygen. This process, which occurs in photosystem II (PSII), is driven by the conversion of visible light to chemical energy. Electrons oxidize water, which leads to the evolution of molecular oxygen and the release of protons into the thylakoid lumen. This proton gradient is a major contributor to the proton motive force used to biosynthesize ATP from ADP via ATP synthase.

The OEC is composed of a cluster of manganese, calcium and chloride ions bound to extrinsic proteins. In plants there are four (PsbO, PsbP, PsbQ and PsbR). Maintenance of the highly dynamic Mn4CaO5 cluster also requires the delivery of a constant supply of the proper levels of Mn2+ and Ca2+. The mechanism of water oxidation has remained virtually unchanged between green plants and cyanobacteria, and is similar in all higher plants. Simpler mechanisms are unknown.

Each of the extrinsic proteins of plants are ESSENTIAL, and each was tested upon mutated form, and the mechanism was found inefficient, and compromising the OEC function. Furthermore, a water network around the Mn4CaO5 cluster, and D1 protein subunit of PSII are also absolutely necessary. Each protein and the Mn4CaO5 cluster has no function by its own, only, if duly embedded and working in the whole mechanism. It could therefore not provide any survival advantage to the organism, unless everything is set up. Its the same as to ask what good a piston motor would be by its own ? It has no function , unless duly mounted and well matched inside the motor block.

There is no ignorance, but based on the scientific evidence of mutation experiments WE DO KNOW OEC absolutely requires each protein and a precisely arranged Mn4CaO5 cluster fully evolved and set up.

1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2016,19:37   

We know with certainty that improbable does not mean impossible.
We know with certainty that highly complex systems can evolve from simpler beginnings.
We know with certainty that all you have are special pleading , dishonesty, and misunderstanding.

Weren't you going away?

  
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2016,01:26   

Quote (NoName @ May 03 2016,19:37)
We know with certainty that improbable does not mean impossible.
We know with certainty that highly complex systems can evolve from simpler beginnings.
We know with certainty that all you have are special pleading , dishonesty, and misunderstanding.

Weren't you going away?

He had to turn over to the Sandwalk where Larry is having fun with him.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
RumraketR



Posts: 13
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2016,06:36   

Quote (Otangelo @ May 03 2016,19:18)
The key process that produces oxygen in the atmosphere is due to the oxygen-evolving complex (OEC) , which splits water molecules and subsequently releases molecular oxygen. This process, which occurs in photosystem II (PSII), is driven by the conversion of visible light to chemical energy. Electrons oxidize water, which leads to the evolution of molecular oxygen and the release of protons into the thylakoid lumen. This proton gradient is a major contributor to the proton motive force used to biosynthesize ATP from ADP via ATP synthase.

The OEC is composed of a cluster of manganese, calcium and chloride ions bound to extrinsic proteins. In plants there are four (PsbO, PsbP, PsbQ and PsbR). Maintenance of the highly dynamic Mn4CaO5 cluster also requires the delivery of a constant supply of the proper levels of Mn2+ and Ca2+. The mechanism of water oxidation has remained virtually unchanged between green plants and cyanobacteria, and is similar in all higher plants. Simpler mechanisms are unknown.

Each of the extrinsic proteins of plants are ESSENTIAL, and each was tested upon mutated form, and the mechanism was found inefficient, and compromising the OEC function. Furthermore, a water network around the Mn4CaO5 cluster, and D1 protein subunit of PSII are also absolutely necessary. Each protein and the Mn4CaO5 cluster has no function by its own, only, if duly embedded and working in the whole mechanism. It could therefore not provide any survival advantage to the organism, unless everything is set up. Its the same as to ask what good a piston motor would be by its own ? It has no function , unless duly mounted and well matched inside the motor block.

There is no ignorance, but based on the scientific evidence of mutation experiments WE DO KNOW OEC absolutely requires each protein and a precisely arranged Mn4CaO5 cluster fully evolved and set up.

1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Larry Moran on this gibberish

Otangelo: Always wrong all the time.

  
RumraketR



Posts: 13
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2016,07:10   

Quote (Otangelo @ Mar. 13 2016,14:11)
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 13 2016,11:53)
Incredibly improbable things happen All the time.
Improbable does not equal impossible.  Ever.

Asserts facts unsupported by evidence.

That is possibly the dumbest post on the internet. Quite literally.

What amazing bluffoonery. Improbable does not equal impossible.

Improbable directly translates into 'unlikely'. Which is just less likely than 'likely'. Which just means it doesn't happen often, but instead infrequently. But it still happens.  

If something happens 1 in 10 times, then it happens one out of ten times. If it happens a million times less often, it happens one in ten million times. If it happens a trillion trillion trillion trillion times less often, it happens once in every 10 million trillion trillion trillion trillion times. BUT IT STILL HAPPENS.

If it happens one in a quattuorvigintillion googolplex times, then it still happens. Once in every quattuorvigintillion googolplex times.

If it is impossible, then it NEVER happens. It CANNOT happen. In any way.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2016,07:23   

Quote (RumraketR @ May 04 2016,08:10)
Quote (Otangelo @ Mar. 13 2016,14:11)
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 13 2016,11:53)
Incredibly improbable things happen All the time.
Improbable does not equal impossible.  Ever.

Asserts facts unsupported by evidence.

That is possibly the dumbest post on the internet. Quite literally.

What amazing bluffoonery. Improbable does not equal impossible.

Improbable directly translates into 'unlikely'. Which is just less likely than 'likely'. Which just means it doesn't happen often, but instead infrequently. But it still happens.  

If something happens 1 in 10 times, then it happens one out of ten times. If it happens a million times less often, it happens one in ten million times. If it happens a trillion trillion trillion trillion times less often, it happens once in every 10 million trillion trillion trillion trillion times. BUT IT STILL HAPPENS.

If it happens one in a quattuorvigintillion googolplex times, then it still happens. Once in every quattuorvigintillion googolplex times.

If it is impossible, then it NEVER happens. It CANNOT happen. In any way.

Oh, I agree, completely.
It is so profoundly stupid, displays such a mind-boggling prejudicial close-mindedness as to leave one stunned.  Arrogant in its ignorance, and authoritarian right along with it.

Clearly, this fool knows the meaning of none of the nouns involved:
Improbable
Impossible
Facts
Evidence

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2016,12:15   

Two things:

There really are levels of improbability that are equivalent to impossible. Levitation via quantum jump of all the molecules in my body, for example.

Then there's things like winning Powerball, that aren't going to happen to me, but will happen to someone.

Living things are in this second category. There is almost no probability that starting from scratch, I would exist, but something would.

Going on about the improbability of things that exist is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2016,12:23   

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 04 2016,13:15)
Two things:

There really are levels of improbability that are equivalent to impossible. Levitation via quantum jump of all the molecules in my body, for example.

Then there's things like winning Powerball, that aren't going to happen to me, but will happen to someone.

Living things are in this second category. There is almost no probability that starting from scratch, I would exist, but something would.

Going on about the improbability of things that exist is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

Ah, the subtle joys of equality versus equivalence ;-)

I think one of the ramifications that's important against Otangelo's point is that even for things equivalent to impossible, we have methodological naturalism at hand to explain the incredibly improbable occurrence.

He's trying to go for ontological or logical impossibility, and improbability won't get him there.

Nor will it get him away from methodological naturalism.
Least of all due to the complete lack of explanatory power of any other proposed explanation.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2016,21:39   

The interdependet pathway of photosynthesis

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1637-e....nthesis

A gasoline engine "comes to life" only when many different independent conditions are met at the same time. Take away the spark plug, and it will not run at all. Leave out the pistons, and it will not run. Without oil or gasoline, it will not run. The list of interdependent conditions goes on and on. Even if all other conditions are met, it must be given an initial crank in order to start. Likewise, living creatures have inter-dependent characteristics which determine their very existence. Photosynthesis does not work without the conversion of energy into enzymatic and dark reaction cicle activity.

Compared to photosynthesis, a gasoline engine is extremely primitive. In order for photosynthesis to arise spontaneously, the sum of the parts of enzymes, genes, proteins , and protein complexes would have to come together intact in order to function, and the chemical reactions which would produce glucose would have to be started all at once. Each of the enzymes and protein complexes need complex biosynthesis pathways to be produced ( with several enzymes and proteins in the pathway working in a stepwise fashion , and if one step is missed , the final product is not produced )
How and why would evolution produce for example  the oxygen evolving complex, if by its own it would not have any function ? The enzymes and protein complexes do have only function, if working like in a car engine, each contributing to the final goal. And most of these parts  would have no other function, than only in photosynthesis.

Essential parts of oxygenic photosynthesis

The light reactions

1. Lipid bilayer membranes are critical to the early stages of energy storage, such that photosynthesismust be viewed as a process that is at heart membrane-based. 4
2. Chlorophyll is an essential component of photosynthesis, which helps plants get energy from light. 1
3. The light harvesting complexes, also called antenna complexes,  are essential for collecting sunlight and regulating photosynthesis 2
4. Photosystem II (PSII) is a key component of photosynthesis 2
4a.The reaction center is the key component for the primary events in the photochemical conversion of light into chemical energy. 19
5. The oxygen evolving is responsible for catalyzing the oxidation of water to molecular oxygen in plants, algae, and cyanobacteria. 3
6. Of these essential redox components, tyrosine, P680, pheophytin, QA, and Qj have been shown to be bound to two key polypeptides (Dl and D2) 8
7. If the oxidation of plastoquinone takes place in the cytochrome b6 f complex that is located in the stroma, then the plastoquinone must diffuse within the lipid bilayer from the   grana membranes to the stromal membranes. In
   either case, a long-distance diffusion process is necessary to complete the traversal of the electron transport chain.
8  The cytochromeb6 f complex  is an essential player in noncyclic and cyclic electron flow 4
9) Plastocyanin is an essential member of photosynthetic electron transport and functions near PS I.  5
10  PSI is necessary to provide the energy to reduce NADP+ to NADPH  6
10a.The reaction center is the key component for the primary events in the photochemical conversion of light into chemical energy. 19
11) Ferredoxin (Fd) proteins are required for the electron transfer process  from the bound Fe–S centers in the Photosystem I reaction center to NADP+. 4
12) Ferredoxin—NADP(+) reductase same as 9
13) ATP synthase is essential in plants for solar energy conversion and carbon fixation.

The dark or light independent reactions

14) Rubisco  is essential for the photosynthetic process.
15) Phosphoglycerate kinase is required to catalyse the phosphorylation of 3-PGA by ATP 10
16) Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (NADP+) (phosphorylating) is essential to catalyse the reduction of 1,3BPGA by NADPH 10
17) Triosephosphate isomerase is needed to catalyze  the reversible interconversion of the triose phosphate isomers dihydroxyacetone phosphate and D-glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate. 11
18) Fructose-bisphosphate aldolase is a key enzyme to catalyze a reversible reaction that splits the aldol, fructose 1,6-bisphosphate, into the triose phosphates dihydroxyacetone phosphate (DHAP) and glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate (G3P). 12
19) Transketolase catalyzes  the conversion of sedoheptulose-7-P and glyceraldehyde-3-P to pentoses, the aldose D-ribose-5-P and the ketose D-xylulose-5-P. 13
20) Aldolase performs an aldol reaction (creating an aldol) or its reverse (cleaving an aldol). 14
21) Sedoheptulose-bisphosphatase catalyzes the removal of a phosphate group from sedoheptulose 1,7-bisphosphate to produce sedoheptulose 7-phosphate. 15
22) Transketolase catalyzes the reverse reaction, the conversion of sedoheptulose-7-P and glyceraldehyde-3-P to pentoses, the aldose D-ribose-5-P and the ketose D-xylulose-5-P. 16
23) Ribose-5-phosphate isomerase (Rpi) is an enzyme that catalyzes the conversion between ribose-5-phosphate (R5P) and ribulose-5-phosphate (Ru5P). 17
24) Phosphoribulokinase catalyzes the chemical reaction ATP + D-ribulose 5-phosphate \rightleftharpoons ADP + D-ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2016,22:24   

"In order for photosynthesis to arise spontaneously"

Well, there's your mistake right there.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2016,08:37   

Irreducible complexity is a undeniable FACT.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1468-i....ty#2133

Irreducible complexity keeps being a unsurmountable problem for the ones that propose unguided evolution and natural mechanisms to explain  the origin of life and biodiversity in general. No attempt to refute and successfully debunk the argument has been brought forward so far. Eyery attempt, no exception, has failed. Why ? Because IC is a undeniable FACT, no matter what. And this FACT becomes obvious to the unbiased mind  when we envision biological systems as complex molecular machines, that operate similar to man made machines, but far far more complex. Individual parts have no function by themself. This is a important point to highlight. What use does the wing of a airplaine  have alone? None. The engineer has to envision a function for the wing, used as essential part of the design of the airplane as a whole in order to fly, and its use once the airplane is fully built with all parts in place.  The wing must be made with the right specifications, size, materials, form, and placed and mounted at the right place in the right way. And the wing itself requires complex machines to be made. The right materials must be transported to the building site. Often these materials in their raw form are unusable. Other complex machines come into play to transform the raw materials into usable form.  All this requires specific information.   The precise same thing happens in biological systems. Even the most simple cell useses inumerous parts, that have no use by their own. For what reason would natural mechanisms create these parts , if there were no use for them individually ? This is a problem that stretches through all biology, from the simplest to the most complex. Biological systems do only achieve specific tasks, once a number of individual parts are made upon  specific complex instructions, frequently through other specific machines or even factories and assembly lines, that have no other tasks than to build these specific parts, and all this through the instructions of the  blueprint in the genome, and then other specific instructions provide the information of how, when , and where to mount the parts to form the complex machine. Same as done when building human made machines. And all these processes must be strictly controlled, with error check and feedback mechanisms, and if something is not build upon the right specification, complex repair machines fix the problem. These checking and repair systems must be fully operational from day one, otherwise, the organism dies. And energy in usable form must also be provided ,and the make of energy requires also complex machinery which by itself requires energy to be made ( chicken-egg problem ). Furthermore, internal and external communication networks must be established.  Also all these machines are made to self replicate , which adds a hudge amount of further complexity into the picture. Self replication is far from simple. It demands the most complex molecular machinery, which works in a astonishing , beautyful, orchestrated , regulated and controlled manner. Why at all would natural unguided, non-intelligent chemical reactions have the need to produce living biological systems, and keep them existing through self replication?

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2016,09:01   

Lies make baby Jesus cry.

Have you learned statistics yet or do you still think improbable is the same as impossible?

  
rossum



Posts: 239
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2016,12:06   

[quote=Otangelo,May 22 2016,08:37][/quote]
Quote
Irreducible complexity is a undeniable FACT.


Correct.  Irreducibly complex systems exist.

Quote
Irreducible complexity keeps being a unsurmountable problem for the ones that propose unguided evolution and natural mechanisms to explain  the origin of life and biodiversity in general.


False.  IC systems can and do evolve.  Even Professor Behe has agreed that IC systems can evolve.  He was correct to say that IC systems cannot evolve by direct paths, but he was incorrect to say that they cannot evolve by indirect paths.

The various indirect paths are covered by Thornhill and Ussery (2000).  An actual path, given mutation by mutation, is shown by Lenski (2003).  Behe himself has calculated some probabilities of simple IC systems evolving in Behe and Snoke (2004)

IC systems can and do evolve in reasonable timescales, about 20,000 years in the examples treated in Behe and Snoke.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1204
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2016,12:08   

Quote (Otangelo @ May 22 2016,14:37)
Irreducible complexity is a undeniable FACT.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1468-i....ty#2133

Irreducible complexity keeps being a unsurmountable problem for the ones that propose unguided evolution and natural mechanisms to explain  the origin of life and biodiversity in general. No attempt to refute and successfully debunk the argument has been brought forward so far. Eyery attempt, no exception, has failed. Why ? Because IC is a undeniable FACT, no matter what. And this FACT becomes obvious to the unbiased mind  when we envision biological systems as complex molecular machines, that operate similar to man made machines, but far far more complex. Individual parts have no function by themself. This is a important point to highlight. What use does the wing of a airplaine  have alone? None. The engineer has to envision a function for the wing, used as essential part of the design of the airplane as a whole in order to fly, and its use once the airplane is fully built with all parts in place.  The wing must be made with the right specifications, size, materials, form, and placed and mounted at the right place in the right way. And the wing itself requires complex machines to be made. The right materials must be transported to the building site. Often these materials in their raw form are unusable. Other complex machines come into play to transform the raw materials into usable form.  All this requires specific information.   The precise same thing happens in biological systems. Even the most simple cell useses inumerous parts, that have no use by their own. For what reason would natural mechanisms create these parts , if there were no use for them individually ? This is a problem that stretches through all biology, from the simplest to the most complex. Biological systems do only achieve specific tasks, once a number of individual parts are made upon  specific complex instructions, frequently through other specific machines or even factories and assembly lines, that have no other tasks than to build these specific parts, and all this through the instructions of the  blueprint in the genome, and then other specific instructions provide the information of how, when , and where to mount the parts to form the complex machine. Same as done when building human made machines. And all these processes must be strictly controlled, with error check and feedback mechanisms, and if something is not build upon the right specification, complex repair machines fix the problem. These checking and repair systems must be fully operational from day one, otherwise, the organism dies. And energy in usable form must also be provided ,and the make of energy requires also complex machinery which by itself requires energy to be made ( chicken-egg problem ). Furthermore, internal and external communication networks must be established.  Also all these machines are made to self replicate , which adds a hudge amount of further complexity into the picture. Self replication is far from simple. It demands the most complex molecular machinery, which works in a astonishing , beautyful, orchestrated , regulated and controlled manner. Why at all would natural unguided, non-intelligent chemical reactions have the need to produce living biological systems, and keep them existing through self replication?

Irreducible Paragraphity.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2016,14:48   

Quote (rossum @ May 22 2016,12:06)
False.  IC systems can and do evolve.  

Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition — "An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations).  The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway."  (A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box, 2002)

" An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned."


In the quote above, Behe notes that there is a fundamental quality of any irreducibly complex system in that, "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.” Behe elaborates upon this definition saying  "An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway."

On the one side you have a intelligent agency based system of irreducible complexity of tight integrated , information rich functional systems which have ready on hand energy directed  for such, that routinely generate the sort of phenomenon being observed.  And on the other side imagine a golfer, who has played a golf ball through an 12 hole course. Can you imagine that  the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence ? Of course, we could not discard, that natural forces, like wind , tornadoes or rains or storms  could produce the same result, given enough time.  the chances against it however are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to get through the 12 hole course.

  
rossum



Posts: 239
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2016,15:35   

Quote (Otangelo @ May 22 2016,14:48)
Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition — "An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations).  The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway."  (A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box, 2002)


This is Behe's second definition of IC -- note that it is from his "Response to Critics..."  It was this definition that he was using in his 2004 paper, which showed that IC systems could evolve.  In the example he used in the paper, a simple IC system evolved in about 20,000 years.

Quote
"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned."


This is Behe's first definition of IC.  It was shown to be partly incorrect by Lenski and others.  Behe is right that IC systems cannot evolve directly, however they can evolve indirectly.

To make it clearer, Behe's first hypothesis said: "IC systems cannot evolve."  This was shown to be incorrect.  Behe then amended his hypothesis to read: "IC systems are unlikely to evolve, and can only do so by indirect paths."  His 2004 paper was an example of calculating just how unlikely those indirect paths were.

You are mixing up Behe's two different hypotheses.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Cubist



Posts: 494
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,02:38   

Quote (Otangelo @ May 22 2016,08:37)
Irreducible complexity is a undeniable FACT.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1468-i....ty#2133

Irreducible complexity keeps being a unsurmountable problem for the ones that propose unguided evolution and natural mechanisms to explain  the origin of life and biodiversity in general.

False. In point of fact, the notion of "irreducible complexity" dates back to 34 years before Michael Behe was born, and was conceived by a scientist who showed how "irreducibly complex" systems could be produced by means of evolutionary processes. I am, of course, referring to Hermann J Muller's paper Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors, which appeared in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918, pp 422-499. Muller doesn't actually use the specific character string "irreducible complexity", but the notion Muller describes under the name "interlocking complexity" is exactly and precisely what Behe describes under the name "irreducible complexity".
Quote
No attempt to refute and successfully debunk the argument has been brought forward so far.

If "the argument" is Behe's argument, in his book Darwin's Black Box, that an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced by what Behe defines as "direct Darwinian pathways", "the argument" is indeed one that cannot be refuted—but it also doesn't support the conclusion you want it to.

As for Behe's post-DBB "irreducibly complex pathway" notion, my initial reaction is okay, fine, this is a well-defined class of possible evolutionary pathways. So what? Did Behe identify any real, existing-in-at-least-one-contemporary-critter system which was produced by means of an "irreducibly complex pathway"?

Oh, and let's not forget one question you haven't answered: What does "new information" look like—that is, how can you recognize "new information" when you see it?

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,06:27   

Quote (Cubist @ May 23 2016,02:38)
So what? Did Behe identify any real, existing-in-at-least-one-contemporary-critter system which was produced by means of an "irreducibly complex pathway"?

There are many. A list of irreducible complex systems

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2166-a....systems

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,07:17   

Quote (Otangelo @ May 23 2016,06:27)
Quote (Cubist @ May 23 2016,02:38)
So what? Did Behe identify any real, existing-in-at-least-one-contemporary-critter system which was produced by means of an "irreducibly complex pathway"?

There are many. A list of irreducible complex systems

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2166-a....systems

This is what you are saying...

Otangelo: Cars are complex.

Everyone else: Yes, yes they are.

Otangelo: Here's a list of cars.

Everyone else: OK, right. That is, indeed, a list of cars.

Otangelo: You think cars can't exist.

Everyone else: Nope, pretty sure I have a car. Bought and paid for. I personally replaced the headlights on Saturday.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,09:37   

Here is something I saved from ARN a long time ago:
(The ARN link is long time dead)

 
Quote
It seems to me that Behe still is harping on the same sterile theme: Things are so complex they must have been designed. He also insists that ID is a science that should be taught.

http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin....=000261

From a transcript made at the DDD3 conference in 2002:

Question from the audience: I’d be interested in hearing you tell us a little bit about what your theory of intelligent design is, as opposed to what evolution isn’t.

Behe replies: Well, that’s a great question, and I know folks on the other side who are sceptical of intelligent design often get frustrated, but I try to be as conservative as I can and I don’t go out beyond what the data can support because I think overreaching is the bane of theories of design. You say that flagellum looks designed so everything is designed, or that everything that looks complex was designed, or something like that.

I think the short answer to your question is, for all of those things, I don’t know.

There not enough data. For the elephant, we have primelephus, the ancestral elephant of the Asian and African elephant, and mammoth. Well, could that happened by random mutation and natural selection? My instinctive answer is sure - it sure looks like it. It doesn’t look like any big deal.

The more careful answer, the actual answer, is I don’t know - cause I don’t know what’s involved in making one versus the other. I don’t know what molecular changes are necessary to make the small anatomical differences in those different species.

Suppose one believed that those things could have happened by natural selection, but maybe the origination of mammals needed some extra information - how would that have happened - how would the designer have done that? Would it have been, say, information embedded into nature at the big bang, or whenever nature started, or might it have been manipulations along the way, or some sort of input along the way?

The short answer is “I don’t know.”

It seems to me that teaching intelligent design is like teaching ‘We don’t know’ Ought we not also to add: At present, the theory of evolution is the only theory that in a consistent and satisfactory manner account for the facts and the evidence that we have. We have no reason to believe that forces outside of nature have been intervening in the natural unfolding of events on this planet.

Taking this a little further, I wonder about how Behe propose that the design process has been performed. Since Behe likes to use banal metaphors like clockwork and mousetraps, things we know are designed and built by man, let us follow that path.

Design as we know it, is performed in a number of steps.

1. Intent and purpose.
2. Drawing board design, laboratory experiments.
3. “2” is repeated as many times as required to reach a viable design.
4. Production, implementation.

It seems to me that Behe has made no attempt whatsoever at detecting any of these activities. Why?

The way I see it, the most serious flaw in his argument is that he refers to ‘design’ almost as if was some magical abracadabra that inserts whatever feature he fancies into a live being.

While the nature of things is, that it is hardly reasonable to think that any designer would insert, say, a flagellum into a bacterium.

What would have to be don is of course, to manipulate the actual genes, to perform whatever processes required on the DNA of the creature in question. Which of course requires intent and purpose. And an incredible amount of knowledge and sophisticated laboratory facilities beyond anything we know would be required!

It demands to much of my imagination, to think that space travellers would have come here, and would have bothered with manipulating DNA.

To me, that seems like thinking that life is evolving, but within limits. There are certain limitations, borders that cannot be crossed, and therefore require intervention by white coated people. Since this seems rather unthinkable, we are left with magic of the kind for which gods are known to be very skilled at.

And not only that – it boggles my mind when I try to think of the amount of work required to create all species, known and unknown, past and present. Millions upon millions of insects, each requiring directed design.

Is it possible to believe that designers have been travelling all over the planet, visiting not only all the continents, but also a vast number of islands to create all the endemic species there? No matter what Behe or the DI says, it simply is not possible that the designer(s) can be anything but omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

Intelligent Design requires a god, it is dishonest to pretend that the ‘designer’ could be anything else.


So is that it? Goddidit?  


--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Cubist



Posts: 494
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,17:12   

Quote (Otangelo @ May 23 2016,06:27)
Quote (Cubist @ May 23 2016,02:38)
So what? Did Behe identify any real, existing-in-at-least-one-contemporary-critter system which was produced by means of an "irreducibly complex pathway"?

There are many. A list of irreducible complex systems

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2166-a....systems

You misread my question. It's one thing to say that a system is irreducibly complex; it's something else again to say that a system was produced by means of an irreducibly complex pathway. So I'ma ask my question again, with emphasis on the bit you overlooked or misinterpreted or some damn thing:

Did Behe identify any real, existing-in-at-least-one-contemporary-critter system which was produced by means of an "irreducibly complex pathway"?

And while you're in the mood to reply to questions, do feel free to explain what "new information" looks like.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,19:56   

Quote (Cubist @ May 23 2016,17:12)
Quote (Otangelo @ May 23 2016,06:27)
 
Quote (Cubist @ May 23 2016,02:38)
So what? Did Behe identify any real, existing-in-at-least-one-contemporary-critter system which was produced by means of an "irreducibly complex pathway"?

There are many. A list of irreducible complex systems

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2166-a....systems

You misread my question. It's one thing to say that a system is irreducibly complex; it's something else again to say that a system was produced by means of an irreducibly complex pathway. So I'ma ask my question again, with emphasis on the bit you overlooked or misinterpreted or some damn thing:

Did Behe identify any real, existing-in-at-least-one-contemporary-critter system which was produced by means of an "irreducibly complex pathway"?

And while you're in the mood to reply to questions, do feel free to explain what "new information" looks like.

I dont know about critters.

I know imho that certainly the biosynthesis pathway of chlorophyll and hemoglobin is ic.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,22:25   

Quote (Otangelo @ May 23 2016,19:56)
Quote (Cubist @ May 23 2016,17:12)
Quote (Otangelo @ May 23 2016,06:27)
 
Quote (Cubist @ May 23 2016,02:38)
So what? Did Behe identify any real, existing-in-at-least-one-contemporary-critter system which was produced by means of an "irreducibly complex pathway"?

There are many. A list of irreducible complex systems

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2166-a....systems

You misread my question. It's one thing to say that a system is irreducibly complex; it's something else again to say that a system was produced by means of an irreducibly complex pathway. So I'ma ask my question again, with emphasis on the bit you overlooked or misinterpreted or some damn thing:

Did Behe identify any real, existing-in-at-least-one-contemporary-critter system which was produced by means of an "irreducibly complex pathway"?

And while you're in the mood to reply to questions, do feel free to explain what "new information" looks like.

I dont know about critters.

I know imho that certainly the biosynthesis pathway of chlorophyll and hemoglobin is ic.

IC doesn't mean "not evolved". Once you get past that fundamental misunderstanding, then you'll be a lot better off. Maybe this will help...


Houses, according to your (and intelligent design's) ideas are impossible. That's because you can't put up the roof without walls. You can't put up one wall by itself because it would fall over. You have to put up at least two connecting walls for support. Therefore, according to you (and ID), unless you can create a completed house instantly, they are impossible to build.

Yet, we see millions of houses and we know they are built. How is it possible?

It's called support structures. You can, during construction, even see the remnants of those structures in the house. Once those 2x4s that hold the first wall up aren't needed anymore, the builders remove them. If you go by a house with all the walls up, you might see some cut off 2x4s in weird places and a bunch of nails that don't seem to be doing anything.

But if you were present a little earlier, you would have seen those nails holding a 2x4 to the wall to support the wall while other walls were being built.

So, there are steps to the construction of those otherwise irreducibly complex houses. Yes, if you take 3 of the 4 walls way, that last wall will fall over. But there was other stuff present before that we don't see now.

Same thing with cells and anything else that could be claimed to be irreducibly complex. We only see what the things look like now. We don't see their 3 billion years of genetic history and we sure don't see the structures that were there, but not there now.

You don't need poof. Well, ID and creationism does, you just need support. And the best part is, there's significant evidence that those supports don't have to be a functionally positive system to work. Indeed, some are actually negative, but they were sufficiently non-harmful to stay in the population and provide the scaffolding for future evolution.

I can provide evidence of that in a paper. Would you like to see it?

Of course not. You've been doing this to long to even consider the fact that you might be wrong.

Oh well.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
  490 replies since Nov. 15 2015,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (17) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]