|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are your actions relevant to environmental degradation/global warming? |
| Yes |
|
51% |
[ 17 ] |
| No |
|
48% |
[ 16 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 33 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| nautilus wrote: |
UWBob pretends that the discovery of a rabbit in the permian would be enough to convince him and suddenly turn around his life's belief system.
But off course if one was, he'd simply say "Oh, so mammals evolved a little earlier than we thought". |
"Moving the goalposts"? I guess you've run out of arguments and are just throwing ours back in our faces. A pre-Cambrian mammal would require a little more explanation than just "mammals evolved a little earlier than we thought" and would throw serious doubt on evolution. Got one yet? Didn't think so...
| nautilus wrote: |
| ...don't pretend any more that any of you are using logic, reason, or that any evidence, under any circumstance, would get you to consider a possible creator. You have made an emotional decision somewhere in the past that you are now trying to dress up as logic. |
Oh, but if we're all just following the scientific herd, as you so assert, wouldn't we change our minds if science did? I can honestly say with 100% clarity of mind that my belief in evolution is based on the evidence, and that should definitive evidence to the contrary turn up tomorrow, I would alter those beliefs.
A la MM2, I ask you the question: What evidence do you require to falsify your belief? There are a myriad of ways to falsify evolution. How does one falsify creation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pangaea wrote: |
There is no way to scientifically prove that an invisible, omnipotent God exists. |
Absolutely agree, and i have never claimed to be able to prove that.
| Quote: |
| All your posts made in an attempt to disprove certain facets of evolutionary theory don't prove the existence of a creator. |
I think everyone is getting confused and failing to distinguish between a) the theory and b) the implications of the theory.
The theory at hand here is: that the natural world shows evidence of intelligent design.
I've presented evidence (there's plenty more btw) that to any rational person clearly shows, yes, there is abundant evidence of intelligent design.
When you realise that within a bacteria are biological machines complete with component parts roughly similar to cogs, wheels, electrical cables, circuit boards and supercomputers, that are far superior to anything humans have yet designed..then isn't this obviously evidence of intelligent design?
But people are so worried about the implications of reaching such a conclusion that they mentally overrule the evidence.
| Quote: |
| The universe and everything in it could have been created in a way that no one else has thought of yet. |
Well yeah.. there is a long way to go between the conclusion of design and the identification of a designer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
| In 1997 Russell Doolittle, on whose work Behe based much of the blood-clotting discussion in Darwin's Black Box, wrote a rebuttal to the statements about irreducible complexity of certain systems. In particular, Doolittle mentioned the issue of the blood clotting in his "A Delicate Balance", Later on, in 2003, Doolittle's lab published a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which demonstrates that the pufferfish lacks at least three out of 26 blood clotting factors, yet still has a workable blood clotting system. This defeats a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex.' |
[/quote]
I don't know about your pufferfish example (link?), although obviously a pufferfish is not a human or mammal, the blood clotting system of which is described by Behe. Different organisms have different blood-clotting systems.
Doolittle did however clain that after the removal of two blood clotting proteins, mice still survived. behe's response to that, and criticisms by Ken Miller is here:
| Quote: |
In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I devoted a chapter to the mechanism of blood clotting, arguing that it is irreducibly complex and therefore a big problem for Darwinian evolution. Since my book came out, as far as I am aware there have been no papers published in the scientific literature giving a detailed scenario or experiments to show how natural selection could have built the system. However three scientists publishing outside science journals have attempted to respond. The first is Russell Doolittle, a professor of biochemistry at the University of California at San Diego, member of the National Academy of Sciences, and expert on blood clotting. Second is Kenneth Miller, a professor of cell biology at Brown University and author of Finding Darwin's God (Miller 1999). The third scientist is Keith Robison, who at the time of his writing was a graduate student at Harvard University.
I will give their arguments below and my response. Here is a brief summary.
1) Professor Doolittle argued that new laboratory work showed two components of the blood clotting cascade could be eliminated ("knocked-out") from mice and the mice got along fine without them. However, Doolittle misread the laboratory work: the double knock-out mice have severe problems and have no functioning blood clotting system. They are not models of evolutionary intermediates.
Although anyone can misread a paper, in my opinion the fact that an expert cited a recent and contradictory journal article, instead of a publication directly addressing the evolution of blood clotting, shows that there are indeed no detailed explanations for the evolution of blood clotting in the literature and that, despite Darwinian protestations, the irreducible complexity of the system is a significant problem for Darwinism.
2) Although embedded in a lengthy description of how blood clotting and other systems work, Professor Miller's actual explanation for how the vertebrate clotting cascade evolved consists of one paragraph. It is a just-so story that doesn't deal with any of the difficulties the evolution of such an intricate system would face. Even so, in the one paragraph Miller proposes what looks like a detrimental or fatal situation, akin to the knock-out mice (above) that lack critical components.
3) Keith Robison proposed that a cascade might begin with a single enzyme with three different properties. Upon duplication of the gene for the enzyme, the duplicate loses several of the properties, resulting in a two-component cascade. Repetition of the scenario builds cascades with more components. Although intriguing, the scenario starts with a complex, unjustified situation (the enzyme with multiple abilities) that already has all necessary activities. What's more, the proposed gene duplication and several steps needed to lose function are "neutral," unselected mutations. Stringing together several very specific neutral mutations to build a complex system is vastly improbable and amounts to intelligent design. |
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
That's one of Duane Gish's favorite tricks. |
I think you need to update your inventory Tomato. "Duane Gish" is hardly at the forefront of scientific arguments for intelligent design, not sure he ever was.
Instead, try reading this. Its only excerpts but you'll get some interesting reading out of it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=pbZT5wV_6awC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
| Quote: |
| In Origin of Species, Darwin hypothesized seven stages through which the eye could develop. All seven of those stages have been found in species living today. |
Science has moved on to the molecular level, Tomato.
130 years ago it was reasonable to look at whole organisms and conjecture: no longer.
If you're going to make a case for one thing changing into another it has to include precisely how, on a biochemical level. Turns out that your supposedly simple transition from a light-sensitive cell to an eye is impossible. No scientist can show how something like a bacterial flagellum could evolve, let alone a whole eye. Your "steps" between light sensitive cell to eye are revealed by biochemitry to be unimaginably huge leaps of the imagination.
If you want i can invent a fairy tale transition scenario for e.g. a pig into astronaut:
1) Pig is born with extra thick bony stumps on its shoulders
2) Generations later, stumps have become big protusions
3) one day, protrusions catch the wind like a sail: pig flies accidentally.
4) Pig dominates pig society and fathers the entire next generation.
5) In search of new grazing, pigs fly to the moon after having evolved ability to breath in vacuum.
6) pigs find no truffles on moon and return to base.
7) Pigs notice wings are hindrance when foraging in woods, then shed them
 No fossils of winged specimens are left, however scientists conjecture it possibly happened, so we must believe them.
The above is the sort of example you guys have gotten away with for decades: no details of how this could happen on a molecular level, no consideration of potential problems and hurdles to the process, no evidence backing up the idea that it is even possible. Darwin didn't have the advantage of the electron microscope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
1) Pig is born with extra thick bony stumps on its shoulders
2) Generations later, stumps have become big protusions
3) one day, protrusions catch the wind like a sail: pig flies accidentally.
4) Pig dominates pig society and fathers the entire next generation.
5) In search of new grazing, pigs fly to the moon after having evolved ability to breath in vacuum.
6) pigs find no truffles on moon and return to base.
7) Pigs notice wings are hindrance when foraging in woods, then shed them
No fossils of winged specimens are left, however scientists conjecture it possibly happened, so we must believe them.
|
lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nautilus wrote:
| Quote: |
| I've presented evidence (there's plenty more btw) that to any rational person clearly shows, yes, there is abundant evidence of intelligent design. |
No, you really haven't. It may seem like evidence to you, but that is because you are starting with that belief in the first place. Providing evidence that bacteria is complex only proves that bacteria is complex, not that it was created by an intelligent designer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The main problem with Evolution, and indeed science, is that there is no end. and this is very useful to you, when you claim they have no answer.
No scientist has an answer for anything. Lasers, time, gravity, magnets. Yet you do not deny these. This is because as time goes, we go to the smaller and smaller, molecules, atoms, electrons, quarks, leptons, and it goes smaller and smaller still. Until they find the utter first thing and can prove it, nobody should be satisfied. Yet creationists don't deny the existence of atoms, or us.
Evolution is the same. You ask more and more as time goes by, but with the same arguments just updated. It's impossible to win because until evolutionists prove their theories on the QUANTUM level (which is of course impossible thanks to Heisenberg's principle), you and your friends can always have an argument. So In the same sense you should deny the existence of atoms.
Also, there is no dispute that bacterial flagellum were once reduced in complexity. There is no argument. There are simply several theories of which the science world has not collectively agreed upon. Again, no different to any science, so you can go pick on Physics, too (which is far, far more interesting, by the way) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pangaea wrote: |
| Providing evidence that bacteria is complex only proves that bacteria is complex, not that it was created by an intelligent designer. |
Here's a basic diagram of a bacterial flagellum.
http://designanduniverse.com/articles/images/bacterial_flagellum/flagellum.jpg
Clear your mind of everything for a moment and tell me, does it look like it was designed?
Is there some intelligence behind it? Lets not even go into all the intricate biochemical structure and processes, hundreds of proteins and chemical rections that drives it in precise order of this machine, which is more complex and efficient than anything humans have yet designed.
The answer is obviously... a resounding "yes'.
If not, then what exactly would you regard as evidence of intelligent design?
Globutron:
How long would it take to produce just one of the many proteins needed for the blood coagulation system to evolve, as explained by the best professors in Evolution?
The answer is a thousand billion years. Thats 100 times the current estimated age of the earth.
Check out page 93/94.
http://books.google.com/books?id=pbZT5wV_6awC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seonsengnimble
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
If not, then what exactly would you regard as evidence of intelligent design?
|
Perfectly efficient systems like a separation of the trachea and the esophagus. A lack of naturally occurring extinctions.
What you ask for as evidence of the evolution from cells to an eye does not exist, not because it didn't happen, it doesn't exist because we just don't have the records of every molecule present in the process. This does not mean it is evidence against evolution, this just means that this particular piece of evidence for evolution does not exist.
This is like saying, "Even though Bob has the gun which killed Fred, Bob had the motive to kill Fred, Bob confessed to killing Fred and there is video surveillance of Bob killing Fred after shaving his head and covering the rest of his body so as not to leave any DNA evidence, that Bob didn't kill Fred because there is no DNA evidence." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seonsengnimble
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| the answer is a thousand billion years. Thats 100 times the current estimated age of the earth. |
The earth is estimated at about 4.5 billion, last I heard, but that's being picky.
This is only the answer assuming you can read page 94 or so, the book stops at 77 for me. But still, I have no idea how anybody would even be able to count to that number.
How does one know how long it takes? It's impossible. Perhaps in a laboratory environment, but the earth is no stable laboratory. Things change, constantly and dramatically. There is no way on earth (heh) you could say a thousand billion years.
| Quote: |
| Clear your mind of everything for a moment and tell me, does it look like it was designed? |
It looks like a strange and hypothetical illustration of something very small, which could have been created in many ways.
What it almost looks like, is that our designs look like IT. in a vague way. Aside from the fact it only looks that way due to the crude animation, what you're saying is simply your mind comparing to what we have created with our simple heads. Humans are destined to rationalise in such a way that 'this looks like that', as I'm sure you've found yourself doing constantly. Just because it COULD, MAYBE look like something we MIGHT create in 100 million years time, doesn't mean that's the case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Globutron on the link. No need to repeat anything.
nautilus wrote:
| Quote: |
| If not, then what exactly would you regard as evidence of intelligent design? |
As my criteria for evidence of intelligent design is a lack of the things I would consider evidence for non-intelligent design, I will just list them here.
Evidence of non-intelligent design:
Excruciatingly painful and traumatic childbirth
gestational diabetes
preeclampsia
placenta detachment
genetic birth defects
juvenile diabetes
childhood cancers
wisdom teeth
allergies
viruses
tornadoes
hurricanes
earthquakes
tsunamis
I could keep going, but I think you get the picture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is your experiment to prove irreducible complexity? I guess it's not surprising. Proponents of ID with actual scientific backgrounds haven't come up with anything better either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
The earth is estimated at about 4.5 billion, last I heard, but that's being picky.
This is only the answer assuming you can read page 94 or so, the book stops at 77 for me. But still, I have no idea how anybody would even be able to count to that number.. |
Only one or two scientists have posited a theory as to how the extremely complex blood coagulation system could have evolved- an interdependent cascade of enzymes and proteins, that could not work if just one of those proteins was absent.
The most recent theory is here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8236110
In that paper, Professor Doolittle postulates for each of the numerous proteins that they appear on cue via random duplication and recombination of gene pieces, and gives no more details. But consider the luck needed for just one of these blood-cogulation proteins to theoretically be produced by getting all the right gene pieces in the right places.
Animals with blood clotting cascades have roughly 10.000 genes, each of which is divided into an average of 3 pieces. Hence about 30 000 gene pieces. One protein, tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) has 4 different types of domains. By darwinian random shuffling, the odds of getting those four domains together is 30.000 to the fourth power., which is approximately one-tenth to the eighteenth power. If the lottery had the same odds of winning, and a million people played the lottery, it would take an average age of about a thousand billion years before anyone won the lottery.
And after that you still have to calculate the combined odds of "evolving" all the other proteins right on cue to produce a clotting cascade.
This is what was meant by an indirect pathway. it is possible in the sense that random shuffling of genetic material could ultimately produce the protein. But practically impossible in the sense of the time taken and the odds of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
This does not mean it is evidence against evolution, this just means that this particular piece of evidence for evolution does not exist. |
But your entire theory is made up of such hypothetical evidence that doesn't exist.
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Proponents of ID with actual scientific backgrounds haven't come up with anything better either. |
I think you missed my earlier post. A scientist tried to disprove irreducible complexity as far as the blood coagulation system with a lab experiment.
| Quote: |
1) Professor Doolittle argued that new laboratory work showed two components of the blood clotting cascade could be eliminated ("knocked-out") from mice and the mice got along fine without them. However, Doolittle misread the laboratory work: the double knock-out mice have severe problems and have no functioning blood clotting system. They are not models of evolutionary intermediates.
Although anyone can misread a paper, in my opinion the fact that an expert cited a recent and contradictory journal article, instead of a publication directly addressing the evolution of blood clotting, shows that there are indeed no detailed explanations for the evolution of blood clotting in the literature and that, despite Darwinian protestations, the irreducible complexity of the system is a significant problem for Darwinism. |
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
