1poorguy You saidDidn't try what, precisely? To convert people to a creationist view without a shred of solid, scientifically valid evidence? Yes, you did try that.I am not trying to convert anyone. I am trying to defend, in this case, to defent Intelligent Design. I provided plenty of scientific evidence in the link I gave, and I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the IC idea has folded:http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htmIt gives what IC is:A system is irreducibly complex in Behe's sense if all its parts are indispensable to preserving the system's basic function.It gives scientific arguments showing why the the type III secretory system(TTSS) is very unlikely to be a precursor to the bacterial flagellum, and even if the idea that it is a precursor is used it does not offer an explanation of a darwinian method as a precursor:The best current molecular evidence, however, points to the type TTSS as evolving from the flagellum and not vice versa (Nguyen et al. 2000). ...The TTSS contains ten or so proteins that are homologous to proteins in the flagellum. The flagellum requires an additional thirty or forty proteins, which are unique. Evolution needs to explain the emergence of complexity from simplicity. But if the TTSS evolved from the flagellum, then all we've done is explain the simpler in terms of the more complex. ...It explains why the Darwinian mechanism is not realistically capable of evolving IC systems:The Darwinian mechanism selects for preexisting function. It does not select for future function. Once that function is realized, the Darwinian mechanism can select for it as well. But making the transition from existing function to novel function is the hard part.Behe has decisively ruled out direct Darwinian pathways as unable to account for irreducibly complex biochemical systems (a direct Darwinian pathway being one where a system evolves by improving a fixed given function). If indirect Darwinian pathways could also be ruled out as unable to account for such systems, that would sink Darwinism and support intelligent design (an indirect Darwinian pathway being one where a system evolves by also modifying its function). But intelligent design in biology is unthinkable -- you can't go there! So anything that that leads you there must be rejected and anything that protects you from going there receives support. The Darwinian conclusion: indirect Darwinian pathways are not ruled out and in fact account for the way such systems evolved. This is a counsel of credulity: Believe despite the lack of evidence because the alternative is unthinkable. ...Humans can mimic undirected selection and they can now do it very fast on the computer, thereby compressing deep time into ordinary time. And nevertheless, it remains the case that no genetic algorithm or evolutionary computation has designed a complex, multipart, functionally integrated, irreducibly complex system without stacking the deck by incorporating the very solution that was supposed to be attained from scratch (Dawkins 1986 and Schneider 2000 are among the worst offenders here).And regarding that last paragraph, we find it is true regarding the Avida program (from an earlier post on this board)stacking the deck:http://www.iscid.org/papers/Truman_ComplexFeatures2_070104.pdfAbstractThe development of new, ever more complex logic functions is very rapid under the usual Avida settings. It is computationally convenient to model with parameters which minimize the time needed for the simulations. These include: very high mutational rates; smallpopulation size; miniscule genome size; novel functions easy to generate by mutations; very little genetic material which can be damaged by mutations; very little indispensible geneticmaterial; the exclusion of many services such as transcription, translation and physical reproduction from mutations; the presence of more complex functions easily attainable in a bootstrap manner; very high selectivities for new functions; and no penalty for carryingsuperfluous genetic material. Such assumptions virtually guarantee the evolution of novel logic functions, however, due to these characteristics of the Avida platform. Whether the published papers are relevant to neo-Darwinian theory in real biological organisms is doubtful. ...As far as the likelyhood of a darwin mechanism evolving the bacterial flagellum:ID theorists and Darwinians would be agreed that the flagellum would not be a system that required design -- if the probability of the parts of the flagellum forming spontaneously were high, the bacterial flagellum's design would be refuted. ...Bottom line: Calculate the probability of getting a flagellum by stochastic (and that includes Darwinian) means any way you like, but do calculate it. All such calculations to date have fallen well below my universal probability bound of 10^(-150). But for Miller all such calculations are besides the point because a Darwinian pathway, though completely unknown, most assuredly exists and, once made explicit, would produce probabilities above my universal probability bound. Despite all the handwaving that is done to dispute IC, the reality is that IC remains as a serious threat to Naturalistic Evolution. Evolutionists will debate it endlessley because IC cannot be absolute proof of the demise of naturalistic evolution. If you read the link I gave, there is much scientific evidence that is given. The science behind IC is the deciding factor for its potency as an argument. Opponents of IC will make any argument they can to refute it, including false accusations that it is not science and that it is a religious, creationist issue only. I have seen the evidence and the arguments and the arguments against IC are feeble and meant only to confuse the issue, if the IC opponents actually understand Behe's IC theory.On the religious aspect of ID, there is the following from the earlier link I gave, which shows that in theory, ID only has to do with an intelligent input somewhere in the process, which may be sudden or evolutionary, and therefore much more religiously neutral than the skeptics prefer:Intelligent design does not require organisms to emerge suddenly or be specially created from scratch by the intervention of a designing intelligence. To be sure, intelligent design is compatible with the creationist idea of organisms being suddenly created from scratch. But it is also perfectly compatible with the evolutionist idea of new organisms arising from old by a process of generation. What separates intelligent design from naturalistic evolution is not whether organisms evolved or the extent to which they evolved but what was responsible for their evolution.In the context of biological evolution, this means that design can be real and discernible in evolutionary change without requiring an explicit "design event," like a special creation, miracle, or supernatural intervention. At the same time, however, for evolutionary change to exhibit actual design would mean that material mechanisms were inadequate by themselves to produce that change. The question, then, that requires investigation is not simply what are the limits of evolutionary change, but what are the limits of evolutionary change when that change is limited to material mechanisms. This in turn requires examining the material factors within organisms and in their environments capable of effecting evolutionary change. The best evidence to date indicates that these factors are inadequate to drive full-scale macroevolution. Something else is required -- intelligence.If I saw any proof that IC/ID was not viable, then I would admit it is bad science. Then and again, naturalistic evolutionists want absolute proof that IC shows that there is an intelligent agent who designed lifeforms and will never be satisfied and will always fight it any way they can.Everyone is polarized on this issue. Either you accept naturalistic evolution, or you accept Intelligent design, and since there can be no absolute proof for either one, the two sides will be polarized. On the extreme sides are the Atheists for natural evolution and YEC christians who find common ground with Intelligent Design. Atheism is anti-religion religion and YEC Christians are religious religion. Neither will ever find common ground because their religions don't tolerate it. TBoth sides will bend science to their beliefs (non-beliefs as it were), and sometimes try to break it in order to cheat the system. Philosophical arguments will be used to lend sway to public opinion. The more politically correct side has an advantage in some respects and can cause disproportionate force to bear for their side. Unseen manipulation of facts will be used to make "science" work in their favor and many will follow, unaware that they are being duped. Sometimes the truth is publicised, causing lack of trust. Arguments go around and around, with no progress. The same rehash of the same argument again and again. The only change is from scientific news releases, but nothing gets solved. Things just get more complicated. Science is the tool that can be used to gain insight, and properly used can enlighten us on what is more reasonable. The problem is that creation vs evolution is based on the science of origins which is not straightforward and cannot be proven unlike empirical science (chemistry, physics) which contains absolutes.JMHOPaul
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra