Many Adams and Eves?

[StAnastasia]

More bad news for StA and the 200000 working biologists.

I’m not sure what the bad news is. Its the biologists who make daily progress in science, while the IDers and YECs sit in their rented “lab” space in their rented lab coats, crafting plans to whine at scientists. If it were the other way around, we could expect the pages of Science and Nature to be brimming with news about ID and YEC discoveries. But nothing in their camp has yet been discovered, and nothing will be discovered. Being a YEC or an IDer could be described as a harmless hobby like model railroading, except that science education is at stake.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

Thanks…so you agree they died? That’s what I read from what you posted.

Yes Adam and Eve died. What is your point?

 

[buffalo]

No it doesn’t.

What is the material composition of the ball?

What other forces are relevant?

For example, if the ball is magnetic and there is a magnetic force operative in a direction other than “down” then the ball will fall “up” (i.e. not “down”).

Your example is still observable, testable and predictable. All you have done was change parameters.

 

[buffalo]

yes

I gotta see this…

 

[buffalo]

I cannot look back through history and say what did happen but we can look around and say what may have (and I would argue probably and almost certainly did) happened.

The short answer is that half an eye or 20% of a bacterial flagellum is quite helpful and not useless–as the notion of irreducible complexity would necessarily imply. For an example an eye without a properly formed lens is better than not having any sight at all (and in the land of the blind…) and a bacterial flagellum without the whip bit (with the omission of 40 of the 50 parts that form it) is in fact the type-3 excretory apparatus.

Videos speaking on these topics are widely available but I recommend Ken Miller on the bacterial flagellum and Dan-Eric Nilsson on the eye. You can also refer to this chart regarding the eye and these two charts (part 1, part 2) for the evolution of the flagellum which are taken from “Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum” if you want the heavy hitting scholarly answer to one of your two examples.

I do not simply have ‘chance of the gaps.’ The claim of irreducible complexity is that a system such as the bacterial flagellum or the eye is useless and completely worthless when missing any one of its component parts; otherwise it would not be irreducibly complex. Neither of the cases you present meet this burden.

I say this without spite or irony, thank you. I learned new things today answering your question and that makes me happy.

Finding other areas that have some of the same building blocks is not proof. It points to common design in that already successful designs can used other ways. This is what we now know about the “core” of all organisms. 500 or so “immortal” genes are present in every one. These are preserved. From the core countless adaptations are possible. It is like taking lego blocks and building different structures.

We have to look at purpose and specified complexity.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not sure what the bad news is. Its the biologists who make daily progress in science, while the IDers and YECs sit in their rented “lab” space in their rented lab coats, crafting plans to whine at scientists. If it were the other way around, we could expect the pages of Science and Nature to be brimming with news about ID and YEC discoveries. But nothing in their camp has yet been discovered, and nothing will be discovered. Being a YEC or an IDer could be described as a harmless hobby like model railroading, except that science education is at stake.

StAnastasia

Hello - where do you think much of the info is being published? Are you reading it?

Look at the articles - remove the evo spin and look at the actual science. The conclusions are inescapable.

 

[ThomasToo]

Finding other areas that have some of the same building blocks is not proof. It points to common design in that already successful designs can used other ways. This is what we now know about the “core” of all organisms. 500 or so “immortal” genes are present in every one. These are preserved. From the core countless adaptations are possible. It is like taking lego blocks and building different structures.

We have to look at purpose and specified complexity.

But that is proof. The claim of irreducible complexity is that any part of a system (e.g. the eye or the bacterial flagellum) is, on its own, worthless. If there is (a) a plain chain of small, gradual and incremental changes each of which add survival value to get from practically nothing to the structure under discussion * and (b) a value for part of a system absent its whole, the system is not irreducibly complex. Under both of these rubrics the two situations with which I was presented failed.

This is an honest question, I don’t mean to fight and I don’t mean to offend, did you look at the charts to which I linked? Did you watch the videos? Did you read the paper? Frankly from your response it read to me like you read my response, ignored my evidence and replied and if I am wrong I apologize.*

 

[buffalo]

But that is proof. The claim of irreducible complexity is that any part of a system (e.g. the eye or the bacterial flagellum) is, on its own, worthless. If there is (a) a plain chain of small, gradual and incremental changes each of which add survival value to get from practically nothing to the structure under discussion * and (b) a value for part of a system absent its whole, the system is not irreducibly complex. Under both of these rubrics the two situations with which I was presented failed.

This is an honest question, I don’t mean to fight and I don’t mean to offend, did you look at the charts to which I linked? Did you watch the videos? Did you read the paper? Frankly from your response it read to me like you read my response, ignored my evidence and replied and if I am wrong I apologize.*

We need to go to the source:

Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Darwin’s Black Box, page 39.

 

[ThomasToo]

We need to go to the source:

Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Darwin’s Black Box, page 39.

Perfect. Neither the eye nor the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex under that definition.

As I said above, if we remove an arbitrary part of the eye, it still works and still imparts value though not as much as if such a part were not removed. Similarly, if we remove part of the flagellum, it also works just not necessary to flagellate but for other purposes which still have value. In neither case does the removal of any one [arbitrary] part cause the system to cease functioning.

 

[buffalo]

Perfect. Neither the eye nor the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex under that definition.

As I said above, if we remove an arbitrary part of the eye, it still works and still imparts value though not as much as if such a part were not removed. Similarly, if we remove part of the flagellum, it also works just not necessary to flagellate but for other purposes which still have value. In neither case does the removal of any one [arbitrary] part cause the system to cease functioning.

Neither can perform their specified function.

 

[edwest2]

I’m not sure what the bad news is. Its the biologists who make daily progress in science, while the IDers and YECs sit in their rented “lab” space in their rented lab coats, crafting plans to whine at scientists. If it were the other way around, we could expect the pages of Science and Nature to be brimming with news about ID and YEC discoveries. But nothing in their camp has yet been discovered, and nothing will be discovered. Being a YEC or an IDer could be described as a harmless hobby like model railroading, except that science education is at stake.

StAnastasia

“science education is at stake”? More nonsense and hyperbole. You just wrote that they aren’t doing anything but whining, so what are they going to teach anyone, nothing?

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

“science education is at stake”? More nonsense and hyperbole. You just wrote that they aren’t doing anything but whining, so what are they going to teach anyone, nothing?

God bless,
Ed

What she and others are really worried about is science indoctrinization is at stake.

 

[ThomasToo]

Neither can perform their specified function.

That is not part of the definition you gave.

‘The removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning,’ does not mean the system stops functioning as that system it means it stops working for anything. If the definition were to mean what you say it would (or at least should) make that very clear with something akin to the addition ‘for its specified function.’

When you remove any one piece of a mousetrap it ceases to function; when you take the lens out of the eye it does not stop functioning, it just works less well. It can still, however, see in albeit in a more rudimentary and less focused sense.

 

[edwest2]

Evolution of existing life and abiogenesis are radically different questions. Evolution says nothing about where life came from.

I’m glad for that clarification; I wasn’t sure. =P

I can understand not thinking a court has standing to answer scientific questions but the National Science Teachers Association calls intelligent design psuedoscience too.

I don’t think there is a meaningful parallel between an artifact and a living thing. That said, of course we want to see how it works (i.e. what it does and how it does it) but I–for one–most surely do need to know who made it.

Radically different? How so? Life cannot be generated through some natural process. The ultra-orthodox statement that separates the origin of life from some speculation about how it went from primitive to modern is an arbitrary separation.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

That is not part of the definition you gave.

‘The removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning,’ does not mean the system stops functioning as that system it means it stops working for anything. If the definition were to mean what you say it would (or at least should) make that very clear with something akin to the addition ‘for its specified function.’

When you remove any one piece of a mousetrap it ceases to function; when you take the lens out of the eye it does not stop functioning, it just works less well. It can still, however, see in albeit in a more rudimentary and less focused sense.

So the mousetrap is IR and the eye not?

 

[ThomasToo]

Radically different? How so? Life cannot be generated through some natural process. The ultra-orthodox statement that separates the origin of life from some speculation about how it went from primitive to modern is an arbitrary separation.

It is not an arbitrary separation. Evolution is, by definition, ‘the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms.’ This says nothing about where the life came from. It is possible, in the strict sense, to be a dyed in the wool evolutionist and think that life, as such, was created when Ron L. Hubbard used a time machine to go back and spit in the primordial ooze. Evolution does not speak to the genesis of life only what happens once life exists and struggles for survival and resources.

Abiogenesis is the theory in biology that tries to explain how life can come from non-life. Most evolutionists support a wholly natural process of abiogenesis but there is nothing in the theory of evolution as such that speaks to the question.

 

[ThomasToo]

So the mousetrap is IR and the eye not?

The mousetrap is irreducibly complex and they eye is not, correct.

 

[edwest2]

What she and others are really worried about is science indoctrinization is at stake.

Precisely. The indoctrination method drills certain ideas into people’s heads that are entirely arbitrary. Here, it is driven by the insistence argument: I insist that A is true therefore it is true.

Thousands of scientists are not working with evolution daily. They haven’t even figured out how things switch on and off. The worship of the mind of man is to be the source of all knowledge, including a pseudo spirituality that is totally non-historical. As I’ve read elsewhere, this is a battle to control all knowledge by making sure that only one explanatory filter is promoted. It won’t work.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It is not an arbitrary separation. Evolution is, by definition, ‘the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms.’ This says nothing about where the life came from. It is possible, in the strict sense, to be a dyed in the wool evolutionist and think that life, as such, was created when Ron L. Hubbard used a time machine to go back and spit in the primordial ooze. Evolution does not speak to the genesis of life only what happens once life exists and struggles for survival and resources.

Abiogenesis is the theory in biology that tries to explain how life can come from non-life. Most evolutionists support a wholly natural process of abiogenesis but there is nothing in the theory of evolution as such that speaks to the question.

Ok. In my left hand is abiogenesis. I hold onto it for a few billion years, and the moment it turns into life, I put it in my right, evolution hand? Give me a break.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

The mousetrap is irreducibly complex and they eye is not, correct.

How many steps does it take to go from a photosensitive cell to a complete eye?