Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
The famous movie "Inherit the Wind" is widely recognized by historians as propaganda. So too in time, I predict, will the latest sacrifice offered to you creationist's-blood-thirsty Darwinbots by PBS.

Here is the DI on the errors made in the "Judgement Day" special:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html#more
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
So too in time, I predict, will the latest sacrifice offered to you creationist's-blood-thirsty Darwinbots by PBS.


cool.

when the relatively reasonable are reduced to slurs .. we must be winning.



=b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
when the relatively reasonable are reduced to slurs .. we must be winning.


Sorry if that offended you . . . I'm just trying to fit in with the new look of C v E.

Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
PZ Myers on the rebuttal:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/the_morning_after_judgment_day.php

They have an eight-point "rebuttal" of the documentary that consists of many picked nits and regurgitated whines...

Most importantly, it misses the point of the program entirely.

If you've seen it, think back. What was the story it told? It has two parts.

First, it made the case that Intelligent Design is not science...

Second, it showed that Intelligent Design is religion in disguise...

The Discovery Institute "rebuttal" doesn't even touch these issues; their objections don't address the thrust of the court decision, which was accurately portrayed. The story is very simple, and this is all we need to say: Intelligent Design is not science, and Intelligent Design is a religious idea. That's the message, and that's the decision of a major court case, and that's what the scientists have been saying for years. And now, in the desperate gasp of the creationists, they've failed to even touch these conclusions.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
when the relatively reasonable are reduced to slurs .. we must be winning.


Sorry if that offended you . . . I'm just trying to fit in with the new look of C v E.

Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.



i don't think i was really offended.

just don't see how "blood-thirsty" and "darwinbot" could be intended any other way.


yup..... Rational arguments for religion have been scarce since Aquinas (plus or minus a century)


=
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
just don't see how "blood-thirsty" and "darwinbot" could be intended any other way.


And why exactly did you personalize what I considered an obviously over-the-top (and funny) characterization?

If it doesn't fit you, then it wasn't FOR you!

No one has a sense of humor anymore. And no g2w, I won't use the sissy little smileys so you won't think I'm insulting you. You either get it or you don't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html#more



There's so many points... I only have time and patience for one.

3. PBS wrongly claims that Tiktaalik is "one of the most vivid transitional forms ever discovered" and is "the latest evidence to refute intelligent design."
A centerpiece of "Judgment Day's" attack on ID is the fossil Tiktaalik, which allegedly shows fish evolving into amphibians. It's not clear why this would "refute" ID because ID is not incompatible with universal common ancestry. Regardless, Tiktaalik is not very impressive as a transitional form because it does not document the key aspect of the alleged fish-to-amphibian evolutionary transition: the transformation of fins into feet. For more information on why the finlike fin of Tiktaalik does not explain how feet evolved, see:


If i remember correctly, the Tiktaalik was used as an exemplary example of a transistional species, predicted to have existed by the theory of evolution. Therefore it was strong positive evidence in support of the theory of evolution, rather than positive evidence against ID. It refutes ID in only the sense that it supports Evolution. One of the points made in the episode and at the trial is that ID is fundamentally untestable.

And the Tiktaalik is very impressive for it not only shows the amphibian style head on a body with scales but its, "fins" were well on there way to becoming legs, with accompanying bones, including wrist bones. No there weren't feet yet, but you first need legs to stand on.

I leave the other points as exercises for the others.

- weitzhuis
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Much less widely known but, perhaps, more important was the Susan Epperson Vs. Arkansas case in 1967 or 1968.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/epperson-v-arkansas.html

This is the case that really opened the doors to teaching Evolution in public schools in the first place.

The Tennessee case actually changed very little, legally speaking, as John Scopes was found guilty, and that was later set aside on a technicality.

- weitzhuis
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.

And in the world at large...

http://blog01.kintera.com/christianalliance/archives/2005/11/pat_robertson_d.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.


Hey, your side is the one that lied under oath, pal.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.

Bryan,

They could close this board down now. NOVA gave you the rational argument all tied up with a nice bow and handed it to you. The only thing they left out was "QED".

1poorguy (the pleas of the creationists now remind me of the Black Knight..."it's only a flesh wound...come back and I'll bite your knee-caps...!")
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
No one has a sense of humor anymore.

Sure they do. The problem is just that you're not very funny.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Biased or not, the profound ignorance and complete denial of truth and facts by creationist made its own case.

The threats to the plaintiffs, science teachers, and the judge drive home the issue of ignorance with a sledge hammer.

The fact that you would refer to provable facts as propaganda illuminates how closed your mind is in stark relief.

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.


When you offer one, we'll talk rationally. Some of the claims you make marginalize any precept of rationality. You mind is closed to any option other than god. Mine is open to any possibility that can be proved.

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You mind is closed to any option other than god. Mine is open to any possibility that can be proved.

I wish more people were like you, Nigel. Life would be less frustrating (and the judge wouldn't need a body guard).

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No one has a sense of humor anymore.
--------------
Sure they do. The problem is just that you're not very funny.
---------------------

& I might add, why would name calling be even remotely funny?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
The famous movie "Inherit the Wind" is widely recognized by historians as propaganda.

It's widely contended to be propaganda by the religious propaganda machine, a well oiled and perfected machine that has been in high use for two thousand years. Since you can't see the forest through the trees, let's look at a different forest.

If Muslim fundamentalists manage to overthrow western civilization, just how do you think history books will look a thousand years from now? Osama Bin Laden will be revered as a prophet on the same scale as Mohammad, the martyrs of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran as Muslim saints, and all of history prior to the the over throw as evil.

History is written by the victors, and western thought has been influenced by the various facets of the christian church since its rise in Rome.

Have you even considered for a moment the propaganda involved in depicting evolution as anti-god? Did you see the and hear the deep anger from betrayal by those interviewed in the Nova special who's minds can't refute evolution, but still believe in god? Only the best propaganda machine in history can turn a quest for truth into an anti-god movement, which begs the real question, why is religion so afraid of truth? Because truth erodes its power base.

prop·a·gan·da –noun

1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.


You want propaganda my friend? Religion demands blind acceptance and faith, claims the moral high road, and promises salvation to those who protect the name of god. Creationist felt bent out of shape prior to and during the Kitzmiller trial because they were accused of being ignorant, short sighted, and stupid. Those who supported the teaching of evolution were threatened with damnation and death. It takes a lot to incite folks to kill, and the best tool to do it is propaganda.

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.

Why don't you try some, then ?

Oh, I forgot. Creationism is, by definition, irrational.

g2w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Regardless, Tiktaalik is not very impressive as a transitional form because it does not document the key aspect of the alleged fish-to-amphibian evolutionary transition: the transformation of fins into feet.

Sounds like Anne Coulter's line in her book Godless. First she complains that evolution advocates claim that fish developed feet, but with no evidence. Then she complains that the fossils shown to her as evidence are really just "fish with weird appendages."

You can't win with some people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've never seen Inherit the Wind. Off to do some googling...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've never seen Inherit the Wind. Off to do some googling...

That is a rational approach
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
AFAICT, it was a movie making a point about McCarthyism, using a whole lot of poetic license in the play and the movie based on the Scopes trial. I don't see the comparison to a PBS documentary at all.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've never seen Inherit the Wind. Off to do some googling...


great movie. (Spencer Tracy, Fred March, Gene Kelly[*])

i think BOTH sides agree it exaggerates for effect.

..... it's a play ..not a documentary


-


[*] as "C. Darrow", "WJ Bryan", "HL Mencken"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
AFAICT, it was a movie making a point about McCarthyism, using a whole lot of poetic license in the play and the movie based on the Scopes trial. I don't see the comparison to a PBS documentary at all.

It promoted/proposed critical thinking, it did not promote blind belief and denialism.

It questioned dogmatic adherance to old conservative ideas and questioned athority.

It did not promote a blind strict Christian worldview.

There are your similarities....i.e. not enough Christian Godness in either the movie or the Nova show.

md (of course I am biased on this subject, being a Secular Rational Humanist Deist with a dash of Zen <in three part harmony>)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
AFAICT, it was a movie making a point about McCarthyism, using a whole lot of poetic license in the play and the movie based on the Scopes trial. I don't see the comparison to a PBS documentary at all.

You are correct. The reference most likely was simply to the C vs E debate going to court. The movie was (very) loosely based on the original Scopes trial. I believe some have likened the Dover School Board trial as the "new Scopes trial". In fact, it was even referenced in the opening of the PBS program.

I think that's as far as the comparison can go. The movie was, of course, for drama. NOVA was a documentary. I did find it interesting that last time it was the evolutionist that was the defendant, and this time it was the creationists. And unlike the Scopes trial, this time there was rock-solid data from multiple fields that all pointed to the validity of the Theory of Evolution, plus verified predictions from the theory. 100 years ago they simply didn't have that much data. Today it's a slam-dunk.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
AFAICT, it was a movie making a point about McCarthyism, using a whole lot of poetic license in the play and the movie based on the Scopes trial. I don't see the comparison to a PBS documentary at all.


hmmm.... i never noticed/thought-of connection to McCarthy

.but a lot of poetic license .

and NOT a documentary.



-
... the connection is they both talk about Creationism v Evolution ..
( IMO ..the strongest message of the movie is "think for yourownself ..don't listen to ignorant preachers )
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
& I might add, why would name calling be even remotely funny?


IMO ..it can be ..

certainly when i'm the callER ...but sometimes even when i'm the callEE.

( a bit of "smile when you say that, stranger" )

depends on the intent & context.

( but also reminds me of a story from Philosophy School
Prof said that Aristotle supposedly said "sometimes there's arguments where the only thing you can do is get out your club" [ ad baculum ..as they say ] Sometimes because YOU have nothing else to add; sometimes because the other guy just isn't listening. The trick is in distinguishing ..but that's more a Socrates thing )


=b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've never seen Inherit the Wind. Off to do some googling...

For real?? You have some cultural catching up to do, my friend. The original version was a play, so there have been several film adaptations, but the one you need to watch has Spencer Tracy in it, along with Danny Kaye and "Darren" from Bewitched.

Absolutely classic film. Certainly not all historically accurate, but with outstanding dialogue.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And unlike the Scopes trial, this time there was rock-solid data from multiple fields that all pointed to the validity of the Theory of Evolution, plus verified predictions from the theory. 100 years ago they simply didn't have that much data. Today it's a slam-dunk.


made me look.

only 80 yrs ago ..but your point still holds (the "Grand Synthesis" only about 60yrs old)


=
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
AFAICT, it was a movie making a point about McCarthyism, using a whole lot of poetic license in the play and the movie based on the Scopes trial. I don't see the comparison to a PBS documentary at all.


Inherit the Wind is not historically accurate, nor was it intended to be. But many people have seen it, and when they think "Monkey Trial", that is what comes to mind.

The NOVA program on the Dover trials is not historically accurate (at the points the DI make clear). Yet when people think "Kitzmiller", what will come to mind?

I think that is the reasoning behind the comparison, as far as I can tell.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
but the one you need to watch has Spencer Tracy in it, along with Danny Kaye and "Darren" from Bewitched.

Absolutely classic film. Certainly not all historically accurate, but with outstanding dialogue.



no Danny Kaye


-b
.....it was on TCM just a few nights ago
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
& I might add, why would name calling be even remotely funny?


IMO ..it can be ..

certainly when i'm the callER ...but sometimes even when i'm the callEE.

( a bit of "smile when you say that, stranger" )

depends on the intent & context.


Agreed -- name calling can be hilarious. But name calling is not, by itself, a joke. Like for instance, with the usual Humor and Urban Legends thread:

Person A: This ethnic group is a bunch of stupid a**h***s and they're ugly and unpatriotic too.
Person B: That's kind of rude.
Person A: What's wrong with you? Can't you take a JOKE?!? Boy, this board has really declined.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
the one you need to watch has Spencer Tracy in it, along with Danny Kaye and "Darren" from Bewitched.


And Col. Potter as the judge.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
The NOVA program on the Dover trials is not historically accurate (at the points the DI make clear).



The Nova program was pretty damn close. And you've got a lot of nerve talking about accuracy after you brought up the 'Expelled' movie.

Shall we talk about the instructor who was 'unfairly' fired? You know, the one who talked about dogs turning into cats?


Yet when people think "Kitzmiller", what will come to mind?


What I think of is this: ID lost the argument in court, they lost the batle of public opinion judging by the school board election afterwards, and they lost the argument among other scientists. Pretty much a complete and total loss, and yet they keep whining about how things aren't fair.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

What I think of is this: ID lost the argument in court, they lost the batle of public opinion judging by the school board election afterwards, and they lost the argument among other scientists. Pretty much a complete and total loss, and yet they keep whining about how things aren't fair.



god is seriously testing them....
NOT answering their prayers to smite their enemies.



-b
...... didn't see the NOVA ..but saw a lecture by one of the attorneys on UC_TV .. maybe the most interesting part (to me) was the quotes of support he got from Religious people (of course, as a commie-lying-evilutionist ACLU LAWYER ..take with )
..my favorite was something like, <problem with Creationism is it makes God a god-of-the gaps ..MY GOD fills the Universe, he doesn't lurk in the gaps>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I've never seen Inherit the Wind. Off to do some googling...

It's about a guy with an inherited predisposition for gas. It was made long before Beano® evolved, and was both humorous and tragic, at the same time. Curly Howard was wonderful in the role of Samuel "Stinky" Feldman, and I suspect it was only the stigma of having been a stooge that denied him an Academy Award for his spectacular effort.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Inherit the Wind is not historically accurate, nor was it intended to be. But many people have seen it, and when they think "Monkey Trial", that is what comes to mind.

The Ten Commandments and The Greatest Story Ever Told aren't historically accurate, either. However, many people have seen it and think Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea, and that Max Von Sydow arose from the dead. I'm not sure of your point........

cliff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The NOVA program on the Dover trials is not historically accurate (at the points the DI make clear). Yet when people think "Kitzmiller", what will come to mind?

Oh, I have faith, brother, that CBN will come out with their own wonderful version soon with Judge Jones played by a pig. They have to. Evolution is anti-god, and we can't have the truth threatening god, can we?

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Ten Commandments and The Greatest Story Ever Told aren't historically accurate, either. However, many people have seen it and think Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea, and that Max Von Sydow arose from the dead. I'm not sure of your point........

cliff


The point is those people were told to never, ever, never watch Planet of the Apes.

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
IMO ..it can be ..

certainly when i'm the callER ...but sometimes even when i'm the callEE.


:)

That is because you are an annointed "Poopy Head" as per NADA requirements.

md
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
IMO ..it can be ..

certainly when i'm the callER ...but sometimes even when i'm the callEE.


I agree. Some of my best names came from AF'ers

Bray-on
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
yet they keep whining about how things aren't fair.

:)
lol

Science of course is not "fair".....fair has nothing to do with science; it is a social/civilization concept.

Is it fair that ID has no data or experiments to back up its idea?

Nope....but life and science just are not "fair".

md
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
certainly when i'm the callER ...but sometimes even when i'm the callEE.


:)

That is because you are an annointed "Poopy Head" as per NADA requirements.




true.


-b
..... better than "Poppy Head" ....perhaps
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Science of course is not "fair".....fair has nothing to do with science; it is a social/civilization concept.

Is it fair that ID has no data or experiments to back up its idea?

Nope....but life and science just are not "fair".


Science may not be fair. But ID should be evaluated and represented truthfully, even by it's opponents.

I don't think you represent ID truthfully. This short article addresses your "no data or experiments" argument, and several other common ones, in the context of the Kitzmiller decision.

http://www.discovery.org/a/3719

I might add that Behe's new book also examines "data" in light of ID, as do previous works by him and the other major proponents of ID.

ID is based on data, and reasoning from that data.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
no Danny Kaye

Dang it, I meant Gene Kelly. Understandable mistake, right? Both leading men of the same era with a charming characteristic smirk.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I don't think you represent ID truthfully. This short article addresses your "no data or experiments" argument, and several other common ones, in the context of the Kitzmiller decision.

http://www.discovery.org/a/3719


I see a section on that page that claims to be about an experiment on the so-called "irreducible complexity" of the flagellum. What has that got to do with a data or experiment supporting intelligent design? What data constitutes positive evidence for a designer? How does demonstrating IC prove an unidentified intelligence any more that it proves that the first flagellum dissolved out of a magical sugar cube?

The earlier question was whether ID is actually a positive theory or whether it's just a collection of gripes about evolution. Casey Luskin's lame response illustrates yet again that it's in the latter category.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Bryan,

the discovery institute is the blind leading the blind, and Behe has nothing other than a mind incapable of pressing forward when something is beyond his grasp to comprehend. ID is based on a preconceived notion that god exists without proof, or a lack of desire to keep digging until a natural explanation can be found.

Sorry dude, but the DI is a propaganda wagon trying to get up to speed, and it needs to be fought in courts, the classroom, and the election booth.

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I see a section on that page that claims to be about an experiment on the so-called "irreducible complexity" of the flagellum. What has that got to do with a data or experiment supporting intelligent design?

IC is a hallmark of design

What data constitutes positive evidence for a designer?

Irreducible complexity . . . when you find it, intelligent design is the best explanation

How does demonstrating IC prove an unidentified intelligence any more that it proves that the first flagellum dissolved out of a magical sugar cube?


We experience intelligent designers creating IC structures, and we know of no other source for them; we don't experience designers making functioning flagellums out of magical sugar.

Casey Luskin's lame response . . .

Oh golly, I can't believe you called him lame, the board nannies are going to come down on you so hard . . . I'm going to sit back and enjoy this!

Bryan
:-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
the discovery institute is the blind leading the blind

you know, I've never accepted others attempts at smear-tactics, I'm not about to accept yours.

If you want to address a specific arugment, go ahead. I'll play along.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I don't think you represent ID truthfully. This short article addresses your "no data or experiments" argument, and several other common ones, in the context of the Kitzmiller decision.

http://www.discovery.org/a/3719


So...ummm...where is this data and/or experiments that prove there is a Intelligent Designer?

Is there some "copy right" logo I missed or fingerprint or something?
What does this designer look like?
Did it design everything or just some things and then evolution took over?
What would we predict from the information, is this designer going to introduce some new creatures for us soon, does it do good design, will it help us with the evolving super bugs (Resistant TB)?

Complexity is not proof of a designer....a lack of understanding or gaps in our knowledge on how the world got from point A to point B is not proof of a "Designer". It is just a lack of knowledge. Something sicence is working to fill.

Where in these articles does it prove there is a designer and what does it say about the designer?

And I am being "fair" here...so far, as presented to the public, ID idea is a negative idea (i.e. Evolution hasn't explained this yet, so we win) which predicts nothing, and tell us nothing about the how, why, or when of this world. The ID idea is not useful for moving forward, evolution has been very useful in both exploring the world and solving problems. What does the ID idea solve?

I can accept ID if it can accumulate some testable, reproduceable evidence of the core part of its idea....i.e. that there is an "Intelligent Designer"....show me a picture, a correlation, a fingerprint, a Identification Code built into say creatures DNA that is something that we can say means "Designed by ME - the Intelligent Designer". The ID idea also needs to be useful....science is useful, ID idea only seems to be useful in some folks attempt to slow down science.

At this point it is nothing but an idea, not even at the hypothesis stage in my mind, just some peoples idea.

md
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Irreducible complexity . . . when you find it, intelligent design is the best explanation

Bull. Prove it.

We experience intelligent designers creating IC structures,

We experience humans creating IC structures. At the moment we know of no "designers" who are capable of performing abiogenesis and creating a flagellum from scratch. If you've got one up your sleeve, show it.

and we know of no other source for them;

Of course we do. Evolution.

we don't experience designers making functioning flagellums out of magical sugar.

We don't experience designers making functioning flagellums out of *anything*, including sugar. So if we can make up magic men, we can surely make up magic sugar.

Oh golly, I can't believe you called him lame, the board nannies are going to come down on you so hard . . . I'm going to sit back and enjoy this!

No, let me explain the different to you. In addition to making an insult, I made an actual point along side it. Pointless, context-free insults earn you mockery. Accurate insults earn you recs. Keep trying.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Casey Luskin's lame response . . .

Oh golly, I can't believe you called him lame

Correction. Kazim called Luskin's response lame. He didn't say that Luskin himself was lame as you asserted.

Surely you're familiar with the concept, "Hate the sin, love the sinner."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
If you want to address a specific arugment, go ahead. I'll play along.

Okay, but that ball is already rolling. Just because we don't see Jamie Loves Michael written in the sand on a regular basis is not proof that complex designs can only occur through intelligent intervention.

Please refer to Jesus and Mary in the pancake that just sold on eBay for $338 as to just one example of how random events can be misinterpreted.

Secondly, the complexities of the universe are so profound that we have just scratched the surface. As I put forth when I first started posting here, the concepts of infinite time and space are as close to incomprehensible to humans as you will get because we cannot shed our mortality.

The complexity argument only holds water until real science makes a bona fide attempt to explain the phenomena being help up as proof of design. The flagellum motor is a further adaptive process from the toxin injector. In other words, proof of evolution.

If ID were real science it would be designing a god phone so contact could be made.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So...ummm...where is this data and/or experiments that prove there is a Intelligent Designer?

I don't know, why do you ask? You had said:

Is it fair that ID has no data or experiments to back up its idea?


and I gave you a link to such data. Of course you know that science doesn't prove things, so if ID can't prove intelligence behind certain structures, that doesn't mean its not science.

a Identification Code built into say creatures DNA that is something that we can say means "Designed by ME - the Intelligent Designer"

You don't ask for much. "Look, see this code we discovered inside every living thing? . . . well, show me the code INSIDE the code, and then I'll believe . . ."

The existence of a code (DNA) is evidence of intelligence. Every known code, where we know the source, was intelligently designed.

As far as ID being useful, its probably about as useful as evolution:

Jerry Coyne wrote in an article entitled “Selling Darwin” in Nature, explaining that the answer is again, “No”:

[I]f truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.


http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1095
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Irreducible complexity . . . when you find it, intelligent design is the best explanation
---------
Bull. Prove it.


Internal combustion engine . . . I happen to know that it was designed. You'll have to trust me.

and we know of no other source for them;
--------
Of course we do. Evolution.


If you mean know as in "Richard Dawkins makes really neat fairy tales about how it MIGHT have happened (with no way to test the ability of RV/NS)", then you are right. I stand corrected.

Or, I could say: Male bovine dung. Prove it (to keep the "argument" at the appropriate level)

No, let me explain the different to you. In addition to making an insult, I made an actual point along side it. Pointless, context-free insults earn you mockery. Accurate insults earn you recs. Keep trying.


Again, I have to bow to your superior skill in this too.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Correction. Kazim called Luskin's response lame. He didn't say that Luskin himself was lame as you asserted.


Ok, how about this . . . "James, you're full of hot air"

<No dang it, still at the person>

Ok, give me another chance, really, I'll get it this time. . .

"James, that distinction is so lame, it . . . it . . . it is really lame."

How's that?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you want to address a specific arugment, go ahead. I'll play along.
-----------
The complexity argument only holds water until real science makes a bona fide attempt to explain the phenomena being help up as proof of design. The flagellum motor is a further adaptive process from the toxin injector. In other words, proof of evolution.


Nigel, I'm sorry to be the one that breaks it to you, but that was not an argument. It was an assertion. A lame one at that (How am I doing James?)

The TTSS is a data point. In and of itself, it proves nor demonstrates nothing.

How many mutations were needed to go from one to the other? Do you know?
Can you estimate the time necessary for all those mutations to accumulate?
Can you demonstrate ANYTHING about your proposed solution, other than make a bald assertion?

This is what I'm talking about . . . somehow this passes as "science", making up pretty stories about what evolution can do.

Nigel, the only thing I'm criticizing about you here is your blind acceptance of what you are told by scientists . . . you can study the literature yourself and see that the emperor has no clothes. Because it is obvious that you are highly intelligent and a non-conformer (in most things)

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Nigel, I'm sorry to be the one that breaks it to you, but that was not an argument. It was an assertion. A lame one at that (How am I doing James?)

Bryan,

you've gotten defensive.

You seem to forget that at the core of my beliefs are that we humans are a bumbling, inept lot, but as a group, over time, we mange to solve all the puzzles. To cling so desperately to the fact that science, in 150 some odd years, can't replicate what occurred over millions is spurious. The fact that it has been able to find so much evidence to support a theory put forth a century and a half ago speaks volumes on the beauty and soundness of the original thoughts.

But let's go [deleted by the stupid net nanny]-for-tat. Irreducible Complexity is an assertion, as is the assertion that god visited the earth several thousand years ago, interacted briefly with the world, then went on walk about. Unless you're one of the billion plus who so adamantly believe he was whispering away in Mohammed's ear, but you're not, and just like happens in my home all the time, I can't decide which of you is lying, so you both have to go to your room.

It's also an assertion that god created life and species. Kazim asked a great question, that expands upon my issue with this notion of god just appearing briefly, long ago, in a conveniently unverifiable time. If he's the cause of species, why did he suddenly stop? If he didn't stop, when can we expect him to create the next species?

A theory of ID as science would not only ask these questions, but would provide predictions based on the suppositions of the theory, look for clues in the archaeological data, and conduct experiments to verify these predictions.

What does ID predict, besides evolution can't explain it all yet? Evolution predicts that systems evolve, and the structure of the toxin syringe sure looks like a simplified version of the flagellum motor to me. If it didn't, I most certainly wouldn't just blindly accept the explanation given. In fact, my jury was out until they showed the electron microscope pictures of the two structures, as a graphical depiction is subject to interpretation before it's drawn. Yes, I do accept that the proteins involved in the construction of both systems are the same because I don't have the tools to decipher that myself.


the only thing I'm criticizing about you here is your blind acceptance of what you are told by scientists

Religion has a long rich history of suppressing scientific thought, of imprisoning, torturing, and killing those who disagree with their views of anything and everything. This ugly head reared itself in Dover PA. You are stepping onto a very slippery slope here. I accept nothing blindly, but if I had to lean in one direction, I'll lean towards science that is questing to discern the truths in nature without agenda, than lean towards religion, which has always had its own agenda.

The science of evolution is not an agenda, it is the currently accepted best explanation of how life as we see it got here. As technology advances, it becomes an even stronger theory as the new technology shows evidence the predictions made long before there was any way to prove them.

Feel free to make your own predictions and follow the evidence to truth.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Irreducible Complexity is an assertion,

No, its really not. IC things exist.

Your car's engine, for example. Your cell phone. Your Oral-B electric toothbrush. The bacterial flagellum.

All these things can be tested by you, or have been tested by scientists in the lab, and verified to be IC

It's also an assertion that god created life and species. Kazim asked a great question, that expands upon my issue with this notion of god just appearing briefly, long ago, in a conveniently unverifiable time. If he's the cause of species, why did he suddenly stop? If he didn't stop, when can we expect him to create the next species?

A theory of ID as science would not only ask these questions


No, it wouldn't need to ask these questions to determine if something was designed. You can study an object and tell that it was design, totally apart from knowing anything about who designed it. ID is not the science of designers, it is a science of studying the effects of design, the tell-tale marks of intelligence behind something.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If ID were real science it would be designing a god phone so contact could be made.

ID phone home ?

- w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Your car's engine, for example. Your cell phone. Your Oral-B electric toothbrush. The bacterial flagellum.


It should be noted that all the above, save the flagellum, are not part of or is something that replicates itself. That's one reason why the first three items are easily identified as being built rather than evolved. No replication, no evolution. It works both ways.


Anyway, this all just deja-vu of the watchmaker's argument, all over again.

- weitzhuis
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It should be noted that all the above, save the flagellum, are not part of or is something that replicates itself. That's one reason why the first three items are easily identified as being built rather than evolved. No replication, no evolution. It works both ways.


What you say is true, but its not immediately clear to me why that makes the flagellum not IC.

The question (as I interpreted it anyway, Nigel may disagree thats what he meant) was if there are IC things at all.

The flagellum is IC, but was it designed? And the fact that it is part of a replicating system . . . what is more highly designed than a IC system that can replicate itself?

You need a blueprint, and tools within the cell in order to construct a flagellum. It is even MORE designed because of that in my fevered mind. An internal combustion engine has to be assembled by something outside itself. But a cell with a flagellum, no less complex, can actually replicate itself, along with the instructions to make a new flagellum.

Hume's argument IIRC was that the watchmaker argument fell apart because of lack of analogy, the watch and a living thing were not close enough alike.

Now we know that is not true, because we find tiny little machines inside the cell . . .

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
No, its really not. IC things exist.

Your car's engine, for example. Your cell phone. Your Oral-B electric toothbrush. The bacterial flagellum.

All these things can be tested by you, or have been tested by scientists in the lab, and verified to be IC


But none of what you offer is IC. All are comprised of parts that function quite well when separated, that were placed together, or evolved, to a different job. And just as you pull components from a cell phone they no longer function as a cell phone, as you drop the proteins from the flagellum motor, what's left does a different job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

The examples offered to support the irreducible complexity argument have generally been found to fail to meet the definition and intermediate precursor states have been identified for several structures purported to exhibit irreducible complexity.[10] For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.[11] This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.[12]
--------------------------------------------------------------

No, it wouldn't need to ask these questions to determine if something was designed. You can study an object and tell that it was design, totally apart from knowing anything about who designed it. ID is not the science of designers, it is a science of studying the effects of design, the tell-tale marks of intelligence behind something.

So, we can study a bee hive, see the complexity, understand the strength of repeated, perfect hexagons in its construction, and deduce the intelligence of bees?

We're right back to the "God created the earth in six days, and that's all I need to know" argument. Science is not simply postulating that because this is observed here, then anything that resembles it is the same. Science deconstructs everything, knowing that often what appears to be the same is drastically different, and what appears to be diametrically opposed is similar. When evidence is produced to support a scientific theory, it comes not only from people of different ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds, but different disciplines of science. This conspiracy of science you seem to feel is at work has a few too many participants. Conspiracies come from small groups, with a single agenda. Like ID.

If ID wants to claim it is science, it has to stop pretending and do so. The theory of ID needs to formulate testable predictions it can then substantiate. If god created man, then why chromosome 2? If it is science, it has to have a legitimate answer to this question. Why is it that parts of my DNA are the same as a worm's? What's up with the platypus? ID as science can make predictions that will answer these and many more questions if there is any veracity to it.

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your car's engine, for example. Your cell phone. Your Oral-B electric toothbrush. The bacterial flagellum.

All these things can be tested by you, or have been tested by scientists in the lab, and verified to be IC
----------
But none of what you offer is IC. All are comprised of parts that function quite well when separated, that were placed together, or evolved, to a different job. And just as you pull components from a cell phone they no longer function as a cell phone, as you drop the proteins from the flagellum motor, what's left does a different job.


Wikipedia is ok for many things, but for ID it is well-documented that it is extremely biased, to the point of putting up this bogus definition of IC you posted.

Of course those things are not IC . . . under the strawman definition you gave. But that is not how Behe or any other of the major ID proponents define IC.

Here is a fork in the road, Nigel. You've been deceived by Wikipedia on this, and it is easy to prove. Just look up a dicussion of IC written by Behe or Demski. Here, I'll give you a place to start:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

I can really go no further in discussing ID with you if we disagree on this key point. ID falls completely apart if there are no IC structures in biology.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
IC is a hallmark of design...


No, it isn't. It is easy to get IC results through evolutionary processes. A point that has been demonstrated to you many times before.

Or, talkorigins has the bridge example, simple and effective:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
This is what I'm talking about . . . somehow this passes as "science", making up pretty stories about what evolution can do.


It is no different than looking at the moon's orbit today and 'making up pretty stories about what gravity can do.'
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Wikipedia is ok for many things, but for ID it is well-documented that it is extremely biased, to the point of putting up this bogus definition of IC you posted.

Of course those things are not IC . . . under the strawman definition you gave. But that is not how Behe or any other of the major ID proponents define IC.

Here is a fork in the road, Nigel. You've been deceived by Wikipedia on this, and it is easy to prove. Just look up a dicussion of IC written by Behe or Demski. Here, I'll give you a place to start:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

I can really go no further in discussing ID with you if we disagree on this key point. ID falls completely apart if there are no IC structures in biology.

Bryan


You insult my intelligence. I merely offered up the wikipedia offering as an abridged, independent version of my own thoughts. I comfortably refute the IC argument outright as illogical. Complex machinery is built from simpler parts in both nature and mechanics. A lever, wheel, or cell can't be reduced, but an engine, watch, or circulatory system can.

Since ID cannot provide, answers, or explanations to my questions, I am forced in the direction of that which can. Perhaps I should email the DI and ask them. I'm a very curious guy, and evolution makes predictions to answer the questions I ask. If ID can't do the same, it is bunk. Trust me doesn't cut it. Pointing to a bacteria's flagellum doesn't speak to chromosome 2. IC doesn't explain a platypus, warm blood, or carnivores. As a scientific theory, it has to provide explanations as to why and how an ID created these things. That's the quest.

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
IC is a hallmark of design

IC was blown out of the water by one of the plaintiff's witnesses. Very elegantly, and very eloquently. IC is as invalid as the notion of evil spirits causing disease.

1poorguy (wondering when someone is going to market miniature mouse-trap tie clips)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
so if ID can't prove intelligence behind certain structures, that doesn't mean its not science.

Correct. The fact that it makes NO testable predictions means it is not science.

QED.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The bacterial flagellum.

Did you watch the program?? That was one of the examples that destroyed the notion of IC, and probably contributed to Behe going into a corner and sulking after it was over. (Yes, I'm speaking metaphorically...but he was revealed to be less-than-credible.)

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
IC is a hallmark of design...
-------------
No, it isn't. It is easy to get IC results through evolutionary processes. A point that has been demonstrated to you many times before.

Or, talkorigins has the bridge example, simple and effective:


I kinda like the bridge analogy. It does several things for me. One, it shows the usefulness of analogies drawn from human-made machines to the biological world. It puts to rest Hume's critique of the design argument once and for all. Funny though, I keep hearing complaints here about making analogies from human design to biology, but I guess they were just mistaken, since the bridge is so powerful.

Second, it demonstrates the bankruptcy of intellectual efforts to refute Behe's conception of IC. Lets take the bacterial flagellum for example. The bridge analogy predicts either a) that the flagellum was made up originally of 4 or more parts, but became a flagellum by loosing parts (not likely) or b) that the relationships of the parts of the flagellum (some 30-40 proteins) were built up by a series of a-type steps.

So the history of the flagellum should be able to be shown to be that of a continual process of 4 parts coming together, then loosing one part (leaving 3), then more such processes happening until all 40 proteins are now working together to form a fully-functioning flagellum. All these intermediate steps must have a function, or it wouldn't get selected.

Ok Ben, since you say this is so easy to accomplish, can you show me a couple of examples of how this idea was tested on live bacteria to show that it is in fact not only a fairy tale, but the result of experimentation?

I would suspect since it is so easy to accomplish, you'd have 100's of examples of it.

Or, by "demonstrated to you", did you mean making a bald assertion with nothing to back it up? Yes, in that case I've been "schooled" here many times.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is what I'm talking about . . . somehow this passes as "science", making up pretty stories about what evolution can do.
------------
It is no different than looking at the moon's orbit today and 'making up pretty stories about what gravity can do.'


It's very different Ben. You can locate the moon (or other planet), and using your understanding of gravity, make a prediction on where it will be in a month, then test your calculations to see if it was correct.

When we test evolution, on highly amenable organisms like bacteria or malaria, we get nothing. Not only can you not predict what changes will take place, you don't hardly see any changes at all, certainly not changes that could lead to flagellums and EVERYTHING you have to explain in biology.

Evolution explains everything in the same sense that ether explains light.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
I can really go no further in discussing ID with you if we disagree on this key point. ID falls completely apart if there are no IC structures in biology.

Of course it doesn't. Why can't a designer simply always choose to design things that are reducible? ID has explicitly put the details of God -- er, excuse me, I mean of "the designer" (wink wink) -- off limits. So cdesign proponentsists simply can't say that Gthe designerod does or does not have a propensity to create irreducibly complex objects.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Of course those things are not IC . . . under the strawman definition you gave. But that is not how Behe or any other of the major ID proponents define IC.
--------------
I merely offered up the wikipedia offering as an abridged, independent version of my own thoughts.


That's a relief. If you are comfortable erecting strawmen definitions and knocking them down, I certainly won't presume to get in your way again.

Since ID cannot provide, answers, or explanations to my questions

Only because you unreasonably expect answers ID can't give, as if it is promoted as the answer to everything.

ID might be only as useful as archeology, letting us know what happened in the past. Doesn't make it "non-science", nor does it mean that if ID isn't "the theory of everything", it has no value.

I for one want to know where everything came from.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
so if ID can't prove intelligence behind certain structures, that doesn't mean its not science.
-----------
Correct. The fact that it makes NO testable predictions means it is not science.


So if I can give you a testable prediction, will you admit then that ID is science, or is this just a smokescreen?

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Did you watch the program??

Do you believe everything you see on TV?
Do you believe that having the label "Documentary", that proves it is true?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Only because you unreasonably expect answers ID can't give, as if it is promoted as the answer to everything.

No, Bryan. You're being deliberately obtuse. The examples Nigel gave HAVE been explained (and even predicted) by evolution. If ID cannot do the same then it's dead (scientifically speaking), and should be tossed onto the scrap-heap of useless and discredited hypotheses.

And from your other post:
When we test evolution, on highly amenable organisms like bacteria or malaria, we get nothing. Not only can you not predict what changes will take place, you don't hardly see any changes at all, certainly not changes that could lead to flagellums and EVERYTHING you have to explain in biology.

I see you didn't really watch the program. You might have been in the same room when it was on the TV, but you didn't WATCH it. Maybe you were breaking up a fight between your offspring(?). You're too smart to have missed that the flagellum was used to DIScredit (quite effectively) IC. However, you are correct that we can't predict what changes WILL occur (and neither can ID, by the way...or can it??). But evolution can look at the changes that have occurred and explain why, and in at least two cases illustrated in the program it PREDICTED changes that were later verified.

Note also that we are observing evolution every day. We try to kill little bugs, some survive and become resistant to our efforts. In fact, evolution CAN predict what changes will come next. "Bacteria xyz will become immune to antibiotic abc". We know it will happen. It's already happening (can you say "TB"??). Evolution at work, and to our detriment in this case.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Irreducible complexity . . . when you find it, intelligent design is the best explanation
---------
Bull. Prove it.


Internal combustion engine . . . I happen to know that it was designed. You'll have to trust me.


Have you studied logic AT ALL, ever? The fallacy of converse accident should have been covered on, like, day one. Please look it up.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
So if I can give you a testable prediction, will you admit then that ID is science, or is this just a smokescreen?

If you've got a testable prediction (that doesn't include something unverifiable like Lazarus rising from the dead, or something discredited like IC), then you have a working hypothesis. If you can substantiate that prediction you might even have a theory. So have at it! Predict something about chromosomes (for example) and we'll get started.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Do you believe everything you see on TV?
Do you believe that having the label "Documentary", that proves it is true?


Electron micrographs of the structures in question are pretty conclusive (unless you're going to go insane on me and accuse them of using Photoshop to invent it).

Do you believe everything written by Bronze-age nomadic herdsmen 2000+ years ago??

Oh yes...you do...I forgot myself for a moment.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Only because you unreasonably expect answers ID can't give, as if it is promoted as the answer to everything.

Huh? If it proposes to be an alternate explanation to the origins of life, it most certainly has to address and answer those questions. ID proposes intelligence behind life and creation. If it can't provide intelligent responses to simple questions, it's bad theory. Do you really, really believe that if IC is proof of god, then that's it? Now there, it all goes back to "Well, who can possibly know why god does anything? After all, he's god."?

No straw man argument in the unsoundness of IC. Behe has created a self serving argument by defining any complex system as functionless as it was designed if a single component is removed. I'm attacking that definition as illogical and untenable. Complex machinery and systems are built from simpler mechanisms. Pretty simple stuff. Irreducibility occurs at the lowest levels, not the highest.

I got blasted the same way when I argued that 2+2 doesn't equal 4 because I was choosing to define the facts involved differently from everyone else. You can't arbitrarily make your own definitions to defend your hypotheses.

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I see you didn't really watch the program. You might have been in the same room when it was on the TV, but you didn't WATCH it. Maybe you were breaking up a fight between your offspring(?). You're too smart to have missed that the flagellum was used to DIScredit (quite effectively) IC.

I did not bother to watch the docuganda on NOVA. Why would I?

I've read "Darwin's Black Box", where Behe lays out his theory of IC.

I've read a half dozen so-called refutations of DBB, including Ken Miller's, and found them to be utterly unsuccessful because they don't address the issues Behe raises.

I've read the entire Kitzmiller transcript, and have seen first hand how Behe did, and how he has been misrepresented, both in the decision, and in subsequent analysis.

I've read each of the major responses to Behe's new book, "The Edge of Evolution", as well as Behe's replies.

I know the situation quite well, thank you, and don't need to get my information from a cartoon version of the real thing.

Note also that we are observing evolution every day. We try to kill little bugs

Total non-sequitor. Where did Behe or any major ID theorist say that bacteria don't evolve resistance? This has nothing to do with the discussion on whether ID is true, or evolution can create an IC structure.

Evidence of change is not evidence of the construction of IC.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
so if ID can't prove intelligence behind certain structures, that doesn't mean its not science.
-----------
Correct. The fact that it makes NO testable predictions means it is not science.
----------
So if I can give you a testable prediction, will you admit then that ID is science, or is this just a smokescreen?
----------
If you've got a testable prediction (that doesn't include something unverifiable like Lazarus rising from the dead, or something discredited like IC), then you have a working hypothesis. If you can substantiate that prediction you might even have a theory.


Sorry, that's not good enough. You said that ID wasn't science because it made no predictions.

I'll ask you again: If I give you a prediction of ID, will you admit that it is science, or just attempt again to move the goalposts? Substantiating a prediction has never been the test for science.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Electron micrographs of the structures in question are pretty conclusive (unless you're going to go insane on me and accuse them of using Photoshop to invent it).

Conclusive of what? What are you talking about? What do the micrographs prove?

Do you believe everything written by Bronze-age nomadic herdsmen 2000+ years ago??

Oh yes...you do...I forgot myself for a moment.


Are you talking about the Bible? Certainly you are not suggesting that you believe in science in the same way I believe the Bible?

You are the one making the claim that your theory (evolution) can explain the flagellum, in a way that is testable, in the lab. So show me your test.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Huh? If it proposes to be an alternate explanation to the origins of life, it most certainly has to address and answer those questions.

But evolution doesn't propose to address the origin of life, so if ID as you claim does, they aren't in competition, are they? Then there can be no "alternate explanation" to evolution.

You can't arbitrarily make your own definitions to defend your hypotheses.


Yet that is what you are doing when you argue against a concept of ID that Behe doesn't propose.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Ok Ben, since you say this is so easy to accomplish, can you show me a couple of examples of how this idea was tested on live bacteria to show that it is in fact not only a fairy tale, but the result of experimentation?

Switch arguments much ? The claim I was refuting was that IC is a hallmark of design. It isn't. IC results from BOTH intelligent design and evolutionary processes.



I would suspect since it is so easy to accomplish, you'd have 100's of examples of it.

Or, by "demonstrated to you", did you mean making a bald assertion with nothing to back it up? Yes, in that case I've been "schooled" here many times.


I skimmed your link:

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

and it doesn't seem to redefine IC. So, using the operational definition with which I am familiar:

(a system) "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"

IC has resulted from 100s (probably 1000s) of evolutionary algorithms used to 'design' lenses, circuits, programs, etc. It is trivial to show that IC is NOT a hallmark of intelligent design.


Your demand for an explanation of how the bacterium flagellum (sp?) evolved shows ID as a negative argument about as solidly as it can be done.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's very different Ben. You can locate the moon (or other planet), and using your understanding of gravity, make a prediction on where it will be in a month, then test your calculations to see if it was correct.


Similarly, you can look at an individual's genome and predict that their offspring's genome will be incredibly similar. Humans won't naturally give birth to dogs. You can come up with predictions aobout how much offspring should differ from parents in statistical samples and test it. You can come up with predictions about when certain un-discovered species lived, with some idea of their morphology, and go find them.



When we test evolution, on highly amenable organisms like bacteria or malaria, we get nothing. Not only can you not predict what changes will take place,

You can't predict the specifics, no, but you can predict statistical ranges. If I throw one regular die, I can't predict the result. I can predict it should give a result between 1 and 6 and statistical ranges for the outcomes.



Evolution explains everything in the same sense that ether explains light.

No. Evolution explains everything in the same sense that walking, swimming, etc., explains large-scale pre-industrial migrations.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I got blasted the same way when I argued that 2+2 doesn't equal 4 because I was choosing to define the facts involved differently from everyone else.


That was fun. Maybe only for a math nerd...I thought it was fun.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Do you believe everything you see on TV?
Do you believe that having the label "Documentary", that proves it is true?


You know, back when you were pestering me about Michael Behe, I had a similarly low opinion of his integrity. But at least eventually went ahead and read the book. Even before I read it, I at least familiarized myself with his arguments and didn't reduce myself to empty snipes such as "Do you believe everything you read in books?"

Now that I've read it, I still have a similarly low opinion of his integrity, but I don't respond to Behe's arguments by complaining about how Behe is biased. I argue against what he's saying.

I wish you would take the same approach, but I suppose that's too much to ask.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If I give you a prediction of ID, will you admit that it is science, or just attempt again to move the goalposts? Substantiating a prediction has never been the test for science.

For ID to be a working hypothesis, it must explain all the relevant observations we already have and make new predictions different than the ToE. Substantiating the predictions would be necessary for the hypothesis to begin gaining acceptance on its way to theory.

If ID and the ToE are not either/or, as you assert, then you have to either combine the two into your hypothesis or limit your field of relevant observations. First, which is it? If the latter, what is the criteria used to determine which observations are relevant ?

As for the predictions, what positive predictions does ID make ?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Sorry, that's not good enough. You said that ID wasn't science because it made no predictions.

I'll ask you again: If I give you a prediction of ID, will you admit that it is science, or just attempt again to move the goalposts? Substantiating a prediction has never been the test for science.


No. Again with the logic. Not making predictions is one of MANY things that makes ID fail as science; it is simply the most obvious one. But you can make a prediction and still not have a scientific theory.

Astrology makes testable predictions. Those predictions are most usually wrong. Astrology is not science, unless you believe Michael Behe.

By your apparent standards, a cdesign proponentist could write a letter to a journal saying "I predict that all brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end." Just because you SAY that something is a prediction of ID doesn't mean that it makes ID science. As Richard Feynmann once wrote about what he called "cargo cult science":

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html
In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas -- he's the controller -- and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones.


The point being that there is more to doing science than simply doing things that LOOK like people who do science.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Pretty much a complete and total loss, and yet they keep whining about how things aren't fair.

You can find the "we didn't win, so it wasn't fair" faction represented in ANY political or social group.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If ID and the ToE are not either/or, as you assert, then you have to either combine the two into your hypothesis or limit your field of relevant observations. First, which is it? If the latter, what is the criteria used to determine which observations are relevant ?

As for the predictions, what positive predictions does ID make ?



probably just deja vu ... but seems to me that question has been asked a zillion times on this board.


.... and i don't recall an answer. ever.


=
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The point being that there is more to doing science than simply doing things that LOOK like people who do science.

The most important being able to admit when wrong, which is where religion will always hit the wall. Science has regrouped and retracted continually, but Bryan keeps going back to the spurious argument that evolutionary theory is no different than ID because it is dogma. Reasonably accepted as the best explanation put forth and dogma are mutually exclusive concepts.

God can't be challenged as a belief in god is a belief in the authoritative and can't be disputed. Those who embrace this concept aren't capable of understanding what a rebellious lot scientist and logical thinkers are, as rebellion within their own sphere is blasphemous, and can lead to a good dose of shunning.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I did not bother to watch the docuganda on NOVA. Why would I?

Because you want to be exposed to new ideas and new perspectives? No?

Total non-sequitor. Where did Behe or any major ID theorist say that bacteria don't evolve resistance? This has nothing to do with the discussion on whether ID is true, or evolution can create an IC structure.

OK. I'll give you that one. It was a more general comment on evolution as a whole, and not ID in particular.

The IC stuff was thoroughly trashed. The flagellum thing was turned back on the defendants and used to make them look stupid. Quite successfully.

You know what I find really ironic? IMO, evolution is a better argument for ID than static creationism. What is more difficult, to create some wind-up thing and let it go, or to create something that can adapt and change itself as the need arises? The latter is far more impressive, and far more difficult (just ask someone in robotics).

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'll ask you again: If I give you a prediction of ID, will you admit that it is science, or just attempt again to move the goalposts? Substantiating a prediction has never been the test for science.

Agreed. You misunderstood. I was distinguishing between a hypothesis and a theory. One is weaker than the other. Both are part of science. Give me a testable prediction and you're on your way (again, not something that can only be proven with scripture, or some other non-rigorous means).

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What is more difficult, to create some wind-up thing and let it go, or to create something that can adapt and change itself as the need arises? The latter is far more impressive, and far more difficult (just ask someone in robotics).


You're talking about front-loaded evolution, another kind of design. I find it very interesting.

www.telicthoughts.com is big into that, and they generally think ID is not science . . . go figure

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You misunderstood.

I do that alot.

Give me a testable prediction and you're on your way

Ok:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=26107057&bid=114420
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ok Ben, since you say this is so easy to accomplish, can you show me a couple of examples of how this idea was tested on live bacteria to show that it is in fact not only a fairy tale, but the result of experimentation?
---------------
Switch arguments much ? The claim I was refuting was that IC is a hallmark of design. It isn't. IC results from BOTH intelligent design and evolutionary processes.


No Ben, I'm not switching arguments, I'm asking you to back up your claim that IC comes from evolution too, which you haven't done. Let's review the flow of the argument:


IC is a hallmark of design...
-------------
No, it isn't. It is easy to get IC results through evolutionary processes. A point that has been demonstrated to you many times before.

Or, talkorigins has the bridge example, simple and effective:


This whole argument has been about getting you to back up your claim that IC structures can easily be created by evolution. You seem to confuse assertion with explanation. I want examples, in biology, of where a scientist has demonstrated that evolution has created IC, using the bridge concept, and that such a demonstration is relevant to the flagellum.

And not, I might add, in a computer simulation. That's not good enough. Show me where someone has worked out a testable pathway, then tested it to see if it actually works.

And please, don't provide "examples" of exaptation that are only assertions, which assume evolution did it.

Here is a clear prediction of ID: you won't be able to demonstrate such a pathway, because it is beyond the ability of darwinian processes.

Which also means ID is testable, since such a testable and verified pathway would refute an ID prediction
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
ID falls completely apart if there are no IC structures in biology.



At least we agree on that. And since ID makes no testable predictions about the designer, and because not a single IC structure has ever been found, ID is not science.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
So the history of the flagellum should be able to be shown to be that of a continual process of 4 parts coming together, then loosing one part (leaving 3), then more such processes happening until all 40 proteins are now working together to form a fully-functioning flagellum. All these intermediate steps must have a function, or it wouldn't get selected.

Ok Ben, since you say this is so easy to accomplish, can you show me a couple of examples




Examples are not necessary to refute IC. Your claim is that it's impossible. Ergo, an explanation of how it *could* have happened is all that's necessary to refute IC, not a concrete example. You're retreating into the god of the gaps again. "Anything not explained 100% by evolution must have been done by God." That's a bunch of crap and you know it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Give me a testable prediction and you're on your way
----------------
Ok:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=26107057&bid=114420

1: High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. The bacterial flagellum is a prime example.



False. An evolutionary pathway to the flagellum has been repeatedly presented to you. Not a single IC biological structure has ever been found.


2: Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example.




Gaps in the fossil record? This was a fact that was known before ID ws invented. It's certainly not a prediction. As for the Cambrian, I covered that months ago:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=25028291&resultcode=0060

In the last couple of years, I've read quite a few books on evolution and related subjects, and one that really stands out is The Triumph of Evolution (2000), by Niles Eldredge. He was Stephen Jay Gould's partner in the development of the puntuacted equilibrium theory. Here's some info that might come in handy when dealing with silly posts about the Cambrian explosion somehow disputing evolution. (Might even be worthy of a FAQ update, which doesn't happen as often as we might hope):

--------------

Creationists are very fond of the Cambrian explosion, the relatively abrupt appearance of complex animal life that marks the beginnings of a rich and dense fossil record. Creationists say that the second grand prediction of evolution--that life has evolved in an orderly fashion, with simpler forms preceding more complex--is violated, even downright falsified, by the early Cambrian fossil record. Paleontologists, on the other hand, see this explosion as a fascinating example of the phenomenal speed at which evolution can work.

...there are sequences of sedimentary rock that lie below fossiliferous Cambrian rocks. These really ought to produce forefunners and precurors to the abundantly preserved hard-shelled invertebrates that who up in such profusion in Lower Cambrian rocks. And sure enough, diligent searching and collecting, primarily in the latter half of the twentieth century, has--as we would predict from the simple idea of evolution--shown that there was complex life before the Cambrain...

Thus, predictably, we have begun to fill in the gaps; we now know that the advent of complex multicellular animal life did not occur overnight (nor in a single biblical day), but rather took place in a succession of events spanning 160 million years. But what of that relatively sudden, abrupt appearance of trilobites and other complex forms of animal life at the base of the Cambrian? (...) We now know that trilobites and other sorts of Cambrian life did not show up absolutely all at the same time all over the world; rather, it apparently took a good 10 million years for the familiar faunas of the lowermost Cambrian rocks to become fully established.

The hard-bodied invertebrates that began showing up in profusion some 540 million years ago [in the Cambrian] were already well differentiated and diversified, and they were descended from much smaller, soft-bodied forms that had evolved well before the base of the Cambrian.

In the old days, my predecessors predicted the existence of what they called the Lipalian interval--an interval of time just before the Cambrian during which the great radiation of invertebrate animal phyla took place. The problem was, they couldn't find it. Now we've found it, and we have dubbed it instead the Vendian.

The pattern of rapid evolutionary diversification, followed by long intervals of great ecosystem stability with very little evolutionary change detectable within species, followed (after millions of years) by physical disruption of ecosystems and loss of many species to extinction, is absolutley typical of evolutionary patterns on land and sea for as long as complex animal (and later, plant) life has been on earth. Indeed, this pattern can be found virtually everywhere in the fossil record of the history of life.

p 42-48
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This whole argument has been about getting you to back up your claim that IC structures can easily be created by evolution.

And I've repeatedly asked you to provide proof that a complex structure in nature was created by anyone, intelligent or not. You can't offer anything other than assertions that claim that an electric toothbrush was made by a man, and if you take away a single component, it won't be a toothbrush any more.

It's a stalemate, at best, until one side or the other can produce better proofs.

But as I rambled on last night in a half inebriated state about lil green men, I was forced to concentrate on the notion of an intelligent designer actively intervening over a period of 4.5 billion some years adding complex components and designing species, and concluded that either A, the notion is patently absurd on its face as life had filled all niches quite well without tinkering to create ever more complex systems, AND it required intervening again and again after vast amounts of time had lapsed for no determinable reason other than to just do it, OR, B dating methods are just wrong, we are utterly clueless, and the world was formed complete in a short period of time not all that long ago.

The evidence to date suggests the later is not the case. Their may be flaws in the exact dating of strata, fossils, the solar system, and the universe, but these errors are not on a magnitude of missing the mark by billions of years, so I'm left with only one logical course to follow:

Life and the universe either came into existence through entirely natural means, or was created by some supernatural existence, THEN evolution took it from there. All phenomena that stems from this will be explained in time. There are no proofs that can ever prove conclusively that first life spontaneously came into being, only proofs that can demonstrate life can be induced to begin spontaneously, and the only proof that a supernatural being did it would be a verifiable appearance on his part.

I'm comfortable with the stalemate on this one, as it is a stalemate within me.

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This whole argument has been about getting you to back up your claim that IC structures can easily be created by evolution. You seem to confuse assertion with explanation. I want examples, in biology, of where a scientist has demonstrated that evolution has created IC, using the bridge concept, and that such a demonstration is relevant to the flagellum.

Actually, I think you both are arguing a non-point. IC itself is invalid, evolutionary or otherwise. That was handily demonstrated with the flagellum and the toxin injector. Basically the same device with a few different proteins added or removed. IC does not allow for function if bits are removed, as I understand it. Therefore IC is invalid.

The rest of the argument then becomes comparable to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Doesn't matter because there aren't any.

1poorguy (wanting an "IC" mousetrap tie clip...except I never wear ties if I can at all avoid it)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
IC does not allow for function if bits are removed, as I understand it.

You don't understand it. At least not as Behe uses it.

A mousetrap is a good analogy. It has 5 parts. Remove a part, it won't function as a mousetrap. It's IC:

irreducible = if you remove a part, it ceases to have the function the system had as a whole unit.

complexity = multiple parts working together. More easily identified with more than just a couple parts.

I didn't watch the docuganda on NOVA, but I've seen other so-called refutations of IC using modified mousetraps. You must have seen this analogy, since you keep refering to a tie clasp. Oh right, Miller uses that.

Keith Miller waves his tie clasp around as if he's said something meaningful. He DISTORTS Behes argument, and Behe has called him on it numerous times in print. If you are going to show me how IC has been blown out of the water, then you need to show me how Behe's rebuttal of Miller is wrong. Otherwise you are just waiving pompoms at me and cheering.

Behe has refined his concept due to feedback from critics over the years (how science works, remember) Behe doesn't claim that if you remove a part, it can have NO FUNCTION; only that the function it once had is gone. This fact about mousetraps is entirely uncontroversial. You can do the experiment at home if you don't believe me.

Miller, by showing that a mousetrap with fewer parts can function as a tie clasp doesn't even address Behe's definition of IC. Miller makes up his own definition, then shoots it down. Very brave of him.

For the flagellum, he observes that the TTSS is make up of a subset of similar proteins to the flagellum. But so what, it doesn't function as a flagellum, so it is not a refutation of Behe. It has some other function. That's where the whole idea of the bridge Ben can't give me an example of comes in.

Sure, the flagellum can't evolve from the TTSS in one giant mutational step; it required many many steps, so they claim. But there is no evidence that darwinian processes can actually do the job, to make all the changes necessary to go from TTSS to flagellum; AND research has indicated that the TTSS probably resulted from the flagellum LOOSING parts, not the other way around. Bet the NOVA propamentary didn't tell you that, did it? So the TTSS falls flat on its face twice as a refutation of Behe.

I find it very frustrating when scientists won't even give Behe the courtesy of using his definition and understanding of IC, rather than substituting their own strawman version of it.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
irreducible = if you remove a part, it ceases to have the function the system had as a whole unit.

complexity = multiple parts working together. More easily identified with more than just a couple parts.


Yes, I understand. I guess Behe has the advantage that he created the term, so he can define it as he wishes. Remove one part of a flagellum and it ceases to be a flagellum. I don't think anyone will argue that. However, there are structures with the same basic design as the flagellum that do different things. In fact, of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways. Precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.

Behe has been soundly refuted, and his theory discarded.

You'll really do better if you come at this from abiogenesis. That's the one area that they don't have reasonably well sewn-up from what I can see.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Behe has been soundly refuted, and his theory discarded.

You'll really do better if you come at this from abiogenesis. That's the one area that they don't have reasonably well sewn-up from what I can see.



remember how the Russians beat Napoleon and Hitler?

same strategy .... throw a lot of crap ... then back off ..slow 'em down just enough for winter to exhaust them

flagella ... then something else and something else .. expecting we'll be exhausted by the time we get to the soul


-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I want examples, in biology, of where a scientist has demonstrated that evolution has created IC, using the bridge concept, and that such a demonstration is relevant to the flagellum.

And not, I might add, in a computer simulation. That's not good enough.


Why isn't it good enough ?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Apologies. My daughter hit in the reply early.

I want examples, in biology, of where a scientist has demonstrated that evolution has created IC, using the bridge concept, and that such a demonstration is relevant to the flagellum.

And not, I might add, in a computer simulation. That's not good enough.


Why isn't it good enough ? Hell, they're not even simulations. They are creating real complexity, real IC, without intelligence. We can even stick to the one example we argued about before: the tenth-order analog circuit that was designed by evolutionary processes.

Once you started the program running those processes, reproducing, mutating, and selecting circuits, those processes themselves resulted in the IC circuit design. You could ask the programmers to design the circuit; they could not and did not possess knowledge of the resulting circuit. Same for the project head. Same for every intelligent being on the planet, actually. Until someone went and looked at the results of the evolutionary processes, no intelligence was aware of the IC in that circuit. No intelligence designed it.

I think you previously protested on this one that humans were involved supplying the intelligence. Their intelligence did not produce the design any more than evolution produced the internal combustion engine by producing human designers. The direct design of the internal combustion engine WAS accomplished by intelligent agents. The direct design of the tenth order analog circuit was by evolutionary processes.

IC is NOT a hallmark of intelligent design. If you want to provide evidence of intelligent design, you need evidence of either the designer or the mechanisms by which he designed. You have neither.


And please, don't provide "examples" of exaptation that are only assertions, which assume evolution did it.

Why do you assume previous rotations of the moon around the Earth were by gravity? Why not leave room for intelligent falling?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
because not a single IC structure has ever been found


What definition of IC are you using?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
flagella ... then something else and something else .. expecting we'll be exhausted by the time we get to the soul

["WARNING, WARNING, strategy exposed, abort mission, repeat-abort mission"]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
because not a single IC structure has ever been found
---------
What definition of IC are you using?


His own custom model no doubt :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why isn't it good enough ? Hell, they're not even simulations. They are creating real complexity, real IC, without intelligence. We can even stick to the one example we argued about before: the tenth-order analog circuit that was designed by evolutionary processes.


Ok, now I remember having this conversation with you. At least YOU understand what IC is. We disagree on what creates it.

I don't know enough about the computer simulation you refer to to know if the thing is IC or not, but I'm willing to concede that. But without intelligence setting up the context for the algorithm to work, you get no IC. So once again, from my perspective, IC requires intelligence.

We also don't agree on whether this has anything to do with the claimed evolution of the flagellum in the real world. I say your computer algorithms have no relevance to whether or not natural selection working on variations in bacteria could produce a flagellum from the TTSS, or from anything. I believe the scientific literature illustrates the practical hurdles evolution would have in making all the changes and getting all the parts in the right place and working together. I just don't buy it.

To you, evolution did EVERYTHING, so a little flagellum, in comparison to everything else, is trivial. From your perspective, it makes sense.

I'm happy to leave it at that. I don't really care to rehash the same things with you again, we won't come to any different conclusions this time, will we?

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Sure, the flagellum can't evolve from the TTSS in one giant mutational step; it required many many steps, so they claim. But there is no evidence that darwinian processes can actually do the job, to make all the changes necessary to go from TTSS to flagellum; AND research has indicated that the TTSS probably resulted from the flagellum LOOSING parts, not the other way around. Bet the NOVA propamentary didn't tell you that, did it? So the TTSS falls flat on its face twice as a refutation of Behe.



And yet none of this constitutes positive evidence for ID.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think you previously protested on this one that humans were involved supplying the intelligence. Their intelligence did not produce the design any more than evolution produced the internal combustion engine by producing human designers. The direct design of the internal combustion engine WAS accomplished by intelligent agents. The direct design of the tenth order analog circuit was by evolutionary processes.


One more comment.

I really don't see how you can miss the striking analogy here. The intelligence of the programmers (and the computer designers) was necessary for the algorithm to work and succeed. And I wouldn't argue that evolution produced anything.

The analogy is that, for any biological evolution to work, an intelligence was needed to set up (at least) the environment and the program so that evolution could get going. This literally jumps off the page at me.

So one way or another, you have to have, at the bottom, intelligence.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm happy to leave it at that. I don't really care to rehash the same things with you again, we won't come to any different conclusions this time, will we?


Dunno. When you claim IC is a hallmark of intelligent design, I may or may not challenge you on it. It depends on how energetic and patient I'm feeling at the time.


But without intelligence setting up the context for the algorithm to work, you get no IC.

Without evolution setting up intelligence for intelligent design to work, you get no IC. Therefore IC is a hallmark of evolutionary processes. This is easy! I like your tactics. A watch on a beach is now a clear indication that there must be evolution.


I say your computer algorithms have no relevance to whether or not natural selection working on variations in bacteria could produce a flagellum from the TTSS, or from anything.

Oh? So then what the heck examples ARE you using for intelligence being a hallmark of IC? Before, you were citing the internal combustion engine. If you aren't going to apply outside analogs to biological evolution you can't talk about the internal combustion engine. You would have to talk about a designer designing a biological IC component. I don't know of any such example.



I believe the scientific literature illustrates the practical hurdles evolution would have in making all the changes and getting all the parts in the right place and working together. I just don't buy it.

Strangely enough, the people doing the work that is reflected in the scientific literature DO buy it. Strangely enough, people buy it enough that genetic algorithms and programming are being used to design things that are too complicated for humans (intelligent agents) to design. Evolutionary processes are able to overcome hurdles that intelligences can't. If anything, a complex system might suggest that it is too complex to have originated via intelligent design and must have resulted from an evolutionary process.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The intelligence of the programmers (and the computer designers) was necessary for the algorithm to work and succeed.

Of course. Yet, the intelligence of the programmers and computer designers did NOT design the IC circuit.



And I wouldn't argue that evolution produced anything.

That's a combination of my point of view and your 'second-order' credit-giving. But you cannot deny it without denying your 'second-order' level of credit for design that you are using. The evolutionary process designed the tenth order analog circuit. If you are giving credit to the intelligences who set up that particular evolutionary process, then I have to similarly give credit to evolutionary process for creating the intelligences that intelligently designed things like internal combustion engines or watches.

Either intelligent agents directly designed internal combustion engines and evolutionary processes directly designed the tenth order analog circuit (falsifying IC being a hallmark of intelligent design) or evolutionary processes / intelligent design indirectly designed internal combustion engines and intelligent agents indirectly designed the tenth order analog circuit. On the latter, of course, I credit the evolutionary processes while you would credit a God.

This idea of going back to find the intelligence as the cause is really question-begging.




The analogy is that, for any biological evolution to work, an intelligence was needed to set up (at least) the environment and the program so that evolution could get going. This literally jumps off the page at me.

The analogy is that biological evolution can produce complex results including IC. I don't know how you get from there to saying that an intelligence is required to set up the natural laws that govern our universe and result in biological evolution in certain circumstances.

It's basic theism in disguise. You could make the same argument for an orbital simulation - intelligence was required to set up the simulated laws that governed in the simulation, therefore gravity itself must have been set up by an intelligence.



So one way or another, you have to have, at the bottom, intelligence.

We've arrived at the same point we did the last time. By your point of view, it is impossible to remove intelligence from ANY experiment to see what can happen from the result of mechanistic natural laws. By my point of view, we can try both.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What definition of IC are you using?

Behe's self defined truism, if you remove any component from a complex structure, it ceases to function as that complex structure. The fact that it may continue to function as something else is irrelevant to Behe because that's precisely how complex designs comes about, by adding to less complex structures.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The more I think about this bouncing of credit for IC from the evolutionary processes to the programmers and project designers, the more it stinks. By this logic, under theism, everything is a hallmark of intelligent design. IC and reducible complexity and simplicity and randomness. You can trace all of them back to an intelligence, because an intelligence is at the root of everything.

It's a ridiculous leap. The programmers and project designers did not design the resulting IC circuit. IC resulted from the evolutionary process. To bounce the credit from the process to the process designers is self-defeating.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So one way or another, you have to have, at the bottom, intelligence.

This is the only place I have never argued with you and Paul. I don't concede it has to be intelligence, but I also know it can never be disproved.

I don't need IC or any other arguments to get to this place. And, IF, at the bottom, there is intelligence, it in no way means, implies, or is inferred that that intelligence or any other one had to continue to be involved afterwards, and this continually is where you and I hit the wall. This isn't good enough for you. And so we dance around the May Pole.

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Behe's self defined truism, if you remove any component from a complex structure, it ceases to function as that complex structure. The fact that it may continue to function as something else is irrelevant to Behe because that's precisely how complex designs comes about, by adding to less complex structures.


Agreed. But by Behe's definition, there are many structures in biology that qualify as IC. Someone said there weren't any.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Strangely enough, the people doing the work that is reflected in the scientific literature DO buy it. Strangely enough, people buy it enough that genetic algorithms and programming are being used to design things that are too complicated for humans (intelligent agents) to design. Evolutionary processes are able to overcome hurdles that intelligences can't. If anything, a complex system might suggest that it is too complex to have originated via intelligent design and must have resulted from an evolutionary process.

Because an intelligent agent can imagine and create a design that has no function. Nature is not quite so tolerant.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But by Behe's definition, there are many structures in biology that qualify as IC. Someone said there weren't any.


I was referring to Behe's earlier definition. Of course, his newer one admits that complex structures can evolve from the combining of less complex ones, and so does not require a designer.

Either way, IC holds no water.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The more I think about this bouncing of credit for IC from the evolutionary processes to the programmers and project designers, the more it stinks. By this logic, under theism, everything is a hallmark of intelligent design. IC and reducible complexity and simplicity and randomness. You can trace all of them back to an intelligence, because an intelligence is at the root of everything.


I don't agree. Under theism, everything may be designed, but not everything bears the hallmarks of design. And you simply can't avoid the fact that without intelligent agents, you can't get a computer program that knows how to build circuits and test them.

As a theist, I think the universe and everything in it was designed, either directly or indirectly (like through an evolutionary process). If God exists, then everything could have been designed in one of those ways. There's no way to directly prove any of it. Inference is all we have, and that is faulty.

ID does not claim everything is IC, nor does it claim everything bears the hallmarks of design, at least not clearly or detectably. Likewise, the design detection methods of ID can't detect everything that might have been designed.

For example, I could arrange a pile of rocks so that it looks like it could have resulted from gravity and erosion working on the cliff face. ID would never be able to detect my design. Yet it was designed.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But by Behe's definition, there are many structures in biology that qualify as IC. Someone said there weren't any.
------------

I was referring to Behe's earlier definition. Of course, his newer one admits that complex structures can evolve from the combining of less complex ones, and so does not require a designer.


That's news to me. Link please.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
complex structures can evolve from the combining of less complex ones, and so does not require a designer.
-----------------

That's news to me. Link please.




You pointed this out earlier in the thread. Scroll up.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Agreed. But by Behe's definition, there are many structures in biology that qualify as IC. Someone said there weren't any.

I think it was 1poorguy. I also challenged the validity of the definition to provide any basis for helping to further understanding, as it is self serving to force a single, predetermined outcome. Irreducibility occurs only at the most simple stages.

You can't point to the top of the mountain and say it ceases to be a mountain if you remove the peak. Behe would argue that a mountain is not complex, but if you are attempting to understand how ever more complex systems come into being, whether by human, natural, or supernatural design, the analogy holds.

2+2=4 or 2+2=9. It comes down to the definitions you're working with.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And you simply can't avoid the fact that without intelligent agents, you can't get a computer program that knows how to build circuits and test them.


You can if you use this redirect credit b.s. Without evolutionary processes giving the intelligent agents, there is no intelligent design. IC is therefore a hallmark of evolution.


As a theist, I think the universe and everything in it was designed, either directly or indirectly (like through an evolutionary process).


That's what I said.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
2+2=4 or 2+2=9. It comes down to the definitions you're working with.
----------

OCD: dimension. The dimension one is working with.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
BTW Ben,

did you see the latest results from genetic algorithms?

http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/Slide.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
did you see the latest results from genetic algorithms?

http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/Slide.html



Lol. I like it. It resembles reality too:

Too true, we still screw things up when trying to determine the fitness. Little cheating bastards. I once was using an array to store all the information about each of the critters, including fitness and their own code. They were allowed to modify their own code, until the little buggers learned they could access their own fitness and change it themselves. DOH! Took me ages to track that bug down.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4348438#post4348438

Part of a great thread about evolving the EQU function:
"Irreducible Complexity is Evolvable by Darwinian Mechanisms"
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=197955
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
did you see the latest results from genetic algorithms?

http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/Slide.html
---------------

Perfect!

Just right for an experiment a friend might like to try. She sends her appreciation to you for posting the link.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
You don't understand it. At least not as Behe uses it.

A mousetrap is a good analogy. It has 5 parts. Remove a part, it won't function as a mousetrap. It's IC:

irreducible = if you remove a part, it ceases to have the function the system had as a whole unit.

complexity = multiple parts working together. More easily identified with more than just a couple parts.

I didn't watch the docuganda on NOVA, but I've seen other so-called refutations of IC using modified mousetraps. You must have seen this analogy, since you keep refering to a tie clasp. Oh right, Miller uses that.


So according to you and Behe, a working mousetrap cannot possibly have only four parts, is that right? If I start with five parts, and remove a part, then it stops being a mousetrap. Is that IC to you and Dr. Behe's satisfaction?

Well, it turns out it's very possible to have a four-part mousetrap, as shown by Dr. John McDonald, at the University of Delaware:
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap.html

Quote:"The first step in reducing the complexity of a mousetrap is to remove the catch. The hold-down bar is then bent a little so that it will catch on the end of the hammer that protrudes out from the spring; this end of the hammer might need a little filing to make the action nice and delicate. I've made one of these by modifying a regular mousetrap, and just like the five-part mousetrap, it snaps with mouse-killing force when I jiggle the bait with a pencil."

As that page shows, it's even possible to start with a five-part mousetrap and reduce it down to a single part and still function as a mousetrap.

Dr. Behe rebutted Dr. McDonald's arguments, now claiming it's not enough to start with a complex structure and remove parts while still maintaining the original function. Now you have to start with a simple structure and build up with each additional part adding better utility.

So Dr. McDonald accepted that challenge, demonstrating how an inefficient one-part mousetrap can be built up part by part to the efficient five-part mousetrap we know today:
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Agreed. But by Behe's definition, there are many structures in biology that qualify as IC. Someone said there weren't any.

That's the big problem with IC. The concept of irreducible complexity is so subjective. Who gets to decide what's irreducible? Show a small child the engine of a Formula-1 racecar and he'll be amazed at the complexity of the machine. He might even conclude that all the parts are absolutely necessary to make the racecar go vroom!

But an experienced auto mechanic knows that a simple two-stroke engine has far fewer parts and can drive an engine just fine.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Who gets to decide what's irreducible?

When Behe is using the phrase irreducibly complex and has explicitly defined it, he gets to decide. It doesn't mean that systems that meet Behe's IC criteria can't be evolved - they can.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So according to you and Behe, a working mousetrap cannot possibly have only four parts, is that right? If I start with five parts, and remove a part, then it stops being a mousetrap. Is that IC to you and Dr. Behe's satisfaction?


No, that's not what Behe is saying. A working mousetrap can have one to a hundred parts.

Remember, we're trying to determine how the flagellum came about. Someone here said that IC is a trivial concept; it is. All he's arguing is that if you have a 5 part mousetrap, removing a single part FROM THAT CONFIGURATION will result in a non-mouse-catching grouping of the remaining 4 parts.

Apply to flagellum. Minnich has tested the flagellum by knocking out critical parts of it, and it stops functioning. So it is IC by Behe's definition.

All this proves is that you can't get a flagellum by a direct step-by-step build up of changes . . . all the key parts have to be there in the right place, and with the right fit with other parts, to get a functioning flagellum.

IC DOES NOT PROVE that you can't get there by a circuitous route (by the alleged "bridge" method of building up step-by-step then losing parts, or by co-opting the function of a subset of the parts). But here, the question is "Show me the money". Give me evidence that evolution CAN use some kind of bridge method IN A BACTERIA, to build up a flagellum.

I need to see a detailed, testable explanation of how a non-flagellated bacteria gets its little outboard motor. The details would include what mutations happened to what protein-coding sequences to derive one protein from a precursor, what selectable function was acquired by that, how the cell got the instructions to put together all the proteins in a new configuration that JUST SO HAPPENED to start spinning, etc. etc. You know, actually EXPLAIN something with details, not "Hey, we found something that looks like part of a flagellum, so we add EVOLUTION, and viola, we have the flagellum! What the hell was Behe thinking!"

The rest of your post, including "Dr. Behe rebutted Dr. McDonald's arguments, now claiming it's not enough to start with a complex structure and remove parts while still maintaining the original function.", is irrelevant to this question. The mousetrap is just an analogy. Modifying a mousetrap BY HUMAN INTELLIGENCE does not demonstrate that the flagellum could evolve by itself with no outside intelligence involved.

Show me the money.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Agreed. But by Behe's definition, there are many structures in biology that qualify as IC. Someone said there weren't any.
----------
That's the big problem with IC. The concept of irreducible complexity is so subjective. Who gets to decide what's irreducible? Show a small child the engine of a Formula-1 racecar and he'll be amazed at the complexity of the machine. He might even conclude that all the parts are absolutely necessary to make the racecar go vroom!

But an experienced auto mechanic knows that a simple two-stroke engine has far fewer parts and can drive an engine just fine.


It is not subjective. You might think that because of all the strawmen definitions and "rebuttals" you've read that don't actually deal with the concept as Behe uses it.

IC is a simple concept. Multiple parts working together for a specific function, such that the removal of a part causes the system to cease accomplishing that function.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
No, that's not what Behe is saying. A working mousetrap can have one to a hundred parts.

That's funny, because I could have sworn you said . . . Yes, you did say:

"A mousetrap is a good analogy. It has 5 parts. Remove a part, it won't function as a mousetrap. It's IC.

***

Remember, we're trying to determine how the flagellum came about.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were trying to determine if the flagellum was irreducibly complex.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Minnich has tested the flagellum by knocking out critical parts of it, and it stops functioning.


It might stop functioning as a flagellum, but that doesn't mean it can have no function whatsoever.


So it is IC by Behe's definition.


But this defintion does not rule out evolution.


All this proves is that you can't get a flagellum by a direct step-by-step build up of changes . .



It does nothing of the sort, unless you incorrectly assume the the function of the components can never change.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
IC is a simple concept. Multiple parts working together for a specific function, such that the removal of a part causes the system to cease accomplishing that function.



This definition assumes that this means it has no function whatsoever, and therefore cannot be acted upon by natural selection, etc.


You need to back up this assertion with positive evidence.


We keep asking for positive evidence, and you keep on claiming that until evolution explains the evolution of every biological system in history, ID wins by default. Funny that ID has no burden of finding its own evidence or making its own predictions.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Remember, we're trying to determine how the flagellum came about.
---------
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were trying to determine if the flagellum was irreducibly complex.




Bingo!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No, that's not what Behe is saying. A working mousetrap can have one to a hundred parts.
-----------
That's funny, because I could have sworn you said . . . Yes, you did say:

"A mousetrap is a good analogy. It has 5 parts. Remove a part, it won't function as a mousetrap. It's IC.


I'm talking about the standard 5 part mousetrap Behe used as an illustration of the concept. Neither I nor Behe deny you can make a mousetrap out of fewer or greater number of parts.

If you want to argue at this level of debate, where you ignore all the main points I make, and you focus on meaningless "gotcha" soundbites, count me out.

Remember, we're trying to determine how the flagellum came about.
----------
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were trying to determine if the flagellum was irreducibly complex.


Come on James, the wider context of whether and how the flagellum is IC is to get at the difficulty of explaining how it evolved. There's no point at all of saying the flagellum is IC and leaving the discussion there.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
There's no point at all of saying the flagellum is IC and leaving the discussion there.

The point is moot because it has not been shown to be IC, IMO. I believe the claim it has to serve the same function is specious. It does not follow that one structure cannot evolve from a different structure that had a different function.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The point is moot because it has not been shown to be IC, IMO. I believe the claim it has to serve the same function is specious. It does not follow that one structure cannot evolve from a different structure that had a different function.


The purpose of IC is not to demonstrate that it can't evolve, but rather to demonstrate by which route it HAS to evolve if something is IC.

Then the question becomes, is it possible for the flagellum to evolve by the indirect route.

Assuming it can evolve because its there already is begging the question.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I believe the claim it has to serve the same function is specious. It does not follow that one structure cannot evolve from a different structure that had a different function.


http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Cooption

I loved this part:

"... Darwin gave change of function and improvement of function equal emphasis in his discussion of the origin of complex adaptations, as have most major evolutionary biologists (see citations of cooption). However, the process was mostly neglected during the critiques of evolutionary biology by IDists Behe and Dembski, and they still have yet to come to terms with the process, preferring to rely on unsupported denial that it occurs..."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Remember, we're trying to determine how the flagellum came about.
----------
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were trying to determine if the flagellum was irreducibly complex.

---------
Come on James, the wider context of whether and how the flagellum is IC is to get at the difficulty of explaining how it evolved. There's no point at all of saying the flagellum is IC and leaving the discussion there.




It is not necessary to explain how the flagellum evolved in order to refute IC.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Or, as the evil genius Stephen Colbert put it when interviewing Behe:


COLBERT: Yeah, ’cause if you take away the parts of the mousetrap, all you have is wood, a piece of metal and a spring, and there’s no other possible use for any of that stuff.

http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=218
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
It is not subjective. You might think that because of all the strawmen definitions and "rebuttals" you've read that don't actually deal with the concept as Behe uses it.

You really need to stop telling everyone that they object to IC because they don't grasp the concept. I've followed a lot of boards at TMF filled with meatheads, but this isn't one of them.

Nigel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You really need to stop telling everyone that they object to IC because they don't grasp the concept. I've followed a lot of boards at TMF filled with meatheads, but this isn't one of them.


None of the board members are unintelligent. But the fact remains that some don't understand IC, nor the points the ID theorists are trying to make of it.

Board members can't even agree that there are ANY examples of IC in the world.

I have no problem with you or anyone saying, "I am unconvinced that IC is a problem for evolution", as long as you demonstrate that you know the facts.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
The purpose of IC is not to demonstrate that it can't evolve, but rather to demonstrate by which route it HAS to evolve if something is IC.

Is that the new definition now? Because if it is, it's changed since Behe introduced it.

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."
-- Darwin's Black Box, p. 39

If the point of IC is not to prove that something cannot evolve, then why did he even bother writing an entire book about it?
Print the post Back To Top