Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by scLovely on August 20, 2011 at 6:07am

Until it there is scientific evidence to support it, it is b.s.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon on December 11, 2011 at 4:58pm

What a novel premise, I wish we could all live by such a simple rule.  If we would, we could see that evolution should be abandoned since Darwin himself said that if life were found to be extremely complex his theory would break down.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

 

Scientific case and point, the flagellum motor that could not have existed prior to its finalized state.  The parts may be able to be located, but the locomotive element required for assembly could not have worked prior to is completion.

 

When we stop attacking each other because of bias, we can then grasp at the truth, as IT really presents itself. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chrono-Synclastic Infundibulum on December 11, 2011 at 5:29pm

The best part about your argument is that you ignore the primary function of the eubacterial flagellum altogether, which is not motility but secretion. You also ignore that many eubacteria don't even have flagellum and yet can still move just fine using other mechanisms. You also ignore that some prokaryotes don't move. You are also mistaken altogether- you can remove parts from flagellum and they will still function; it's been done, look it up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on December 11, 2011 at 5:35pm

Oh Jon...

It has been repeatedly pointed out to you people (Pallen and Matzke 2006 and Miller 2004) that features of the flagellar motor have precursors in the type-III secretory apparatus. In response, you people have simply shifted your definition of what it means for something to be irreducibly complex in the first place, and then shift back to the original definition as it suits you. (Boudry, Blanket, Braekman 2010). Then, of the "forty or so proteins in the standard flagellum of S.typhimurium strain LT2 or E. coli K-12, only about half seem to be universally necessary." And all flagellins show common ancestry. (Pallen and Matzke 2006) Moreover, you fail to grasp the simple analogy of the flagellar motor to an arch that requires a scaffolding in order to be built but that can stand freely once the scaffolding is removed. That something appears to be without a precursor now (even if the flagellar motor actually did appear this way), then it may simply be the case that a scaffolding used to be in the place but has since been removed by the forces of selection.

I don't disagree that we shouldn't attack each other, but going on and on like this when ID/IC has been debunked over and over again... it's hardly worthy of respect. At the very least, while we should refrain from attacking persons, attacking bad ideas is how we weed out nonsense and pseudoscience from real science. So you can certainly expect to have the nonsense you're offering be attacked.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon on December 11, 2011 at 6:31pm

Calling something non-science implies the lack of science.  This is not that case for ID since we are talking about scientific inquiry.  I think the fact that such design is found within the complex organism of life; it doesn't take a genius to see a designer.  Irreducible complexity as defined by Behe in this way;

 

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single 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. 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.

 

If you take a basic part away from a car for instance, the car will stop running, this is not theory, its fact.  This goes for integral parts of life as well.  The system breaks down if essential parts are removed. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on December 11, 2011 at 7:01pm

On your account, I could offer the theory of Intelligent Falling and it would be scientific since a person would have to refer to science theory and fact to refute that nonsense. It takes more than that to rise above nonsense.

Yes, I'm familiar with Behe's definition of IC from his book Darwin's Black Box (page 39 if anyone's interested). Let's unpack it a bit. He says "removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" and that an IC system is one in which any precursor that is missing a part is "by definition nonfunctional." As Boudry et al. (2010) point out, there are "two possible reconstructions of his definition: 1) the term “functioning” refers exclusively to the basic function currently performed by the whole system (e.g., the rotary motion of the bacterial flagellum) and does not pertain to other possible functions, in other contexts, when one or more components are removed; and 2) the phrases “effectively ceases functioning” and “non-functional” include any function that the impaired system or one of its components may perform in other contexts." The authors point out that "In principle, it is not very hard to discover whether a system exhibits IC in the first, weak sense. Leaving aside the ambiguity regarding the natural “parts” into which the system must be decomposed (Dunkelberg 2003; Sober 2008, pp. 135-160), it suffices to knock out these parts one after the other to see if the system can still perform its basic function." And as I just explained, since the flagellar motor does have precursor systems and has 40 proteins of which only 20 are necessary, it isn't IC according to this first definition. Another example of purported IC that Behe offers, the blood clotting cascade, can still perform the same function, just not as rapidly or as well. So it isn't IC either.

In fact, as Boudry et al. point out, "only an IC system in the second, strong sense would be an obstacle to evolutionary theory, because it would rule out evolutionary precursor systems and function shifts of the system‖s components. However, it is hard to see how Behe could even begin to demonstrate the existence of such a system without defaulting to the classical “argument from ignorance” (Pigliucci 2002, p. 67). Interestingly, Behe has disingenuously taken advantage of this very ambiguity in answering his critics. In his initial definition, Behe seems to intend the weak interpretation, but he then proceeds to use the concept in a line of reasoning that only makes sense under the strong interpretation. Precisely because the bacterial flagellum is IC, Behe tells us, it could not have evolved by means of random mutation and natural selection. However, when critics object that the system‖s components may well be able to perform other functions in other contexts, thus pointing to the possibility of indirect evolutionary pathways, Behe switches back to the weak definition and claims that his critics have misrepresented his argument."

And I would argue that by resorting to the 2nd definition when his critics point out the failure of the 1st definition, he's defining an apparent instance of IC in such a way that it could never be explained by evolution. The definition simply precludes any reasoned understanding of how evolution works.

If you take a basic part away from a car for instance, the car will stop running, this is not theory, its fact.  This goes for integral parts of life as well.  The system breaks down if essential parts are removed.

No Jon. You're wrong. It's really very simple. You've been sold a bill of goods.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on December 12, 2011 at 1:23pm

He might reply yet. He could just be busy. And if not, there's always another one... :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chrono-Synclastic Infundibulum on December 11, 2011 at 7:03pm

"Calling something non-science implies the lack of science"

Notice Nelson said "pseudoscience" which means "false science".

"If you take a basic part away from a car for instance, the car will stop running, this is not theory, its fact.  This goes for integral parts of life as well.  The system breaks down if essential parts are removed."

It is also a fact that cars do not magically poof into existence but are built incrementally from the ground up. It is also a fact that cars do not reproduce and are therefore not subject to natural selection or other evolutionary mechanisms. It is also a fact that you can remove any part from any car and the car can still function in some other way and so can the part you removed. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron V on December 11, 2011 at 5:58pm

You are either intentionally deceitful or you are have not read On the Origin of Species.  You left out what Darwin says next-

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)

Darwin continues describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Great Dane on August 20, 2011 at 6:10am

Intelligent design is not an intelligent idea.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason on August 20, 2011 at 7:05am

Is it complex? That’s an opinion. Some could argue…. Some will argue that life is not complex. By whom or what standard is life complex? To human standards? To your standards?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt.clerke on December 11, 2011 at 5:18pm

I nominate the above reply to be "Best reply to the ID vs abiogenesis question" in the category of "not just dismissing the ID hypothesis"

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page