Chimps are 98.5% human. (NOT)

[Clete]

But Evolution can account for Irreducible Complexity, the subject isn't an issue really. See this article...

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dunk.cfm

Now, personally I believe that the cooptation and scaffolding ideas and the proposed pathways are HIGHLY speculative and almost leading to the mythical, they also seem to lack rigurous empirical testing. Most seem to think that by just proposing the pathway it is enough to disprove IC, because all it takes is to imagine a solution and not just actually put it to the test or finding evidence to support it. This is one of my main issues with Evolution right now.

As it should be! No such complex system has ever been observed to simply pop into existence out of nowhere and despite what your article says (I admit to having not read it) Evolutionary theory plainly states that things evolve in tiny little incremental steps, not in gigantic jumps that hardly even qualify as jumps, they'd be more like vast epic trips on a rocket ship to galaxies far far away that only took a moment to traverse. It's just ludicrous in the extreme to think that something as complex as bacterial flagellum, for example, just accidentally fell together all at once, which is exactly what it would have had to do or else it would not have worked at all and would have been completely invisible to the Evolutionary process because as a non-functioning system it would have given no survival advantage to the organism.

Why? Because there are (just as in any science you choose to look at) some gaps in our knowledge about some things? Or because there are some apparent dilemas (that as is usual in science are resolved as further research is done)?

No. Because of the way they ignore the problems or change the theory in order to explain away the problem. Evolution is entirely unfalsifiable and as such is it not science but false religion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[noguru]

As it should be! No such complex system has ever been observed to simply pop into existence out of nowhere and despite what your article says (I admit to having not read it) Evolutionary theory plainly states that things evolve in tiny little incremental steps, not in gigantic jumps that hardly even qualify as jumps, they'd be more like vast epic trips on a rocket ship to galaxies far far away that only took a moment to traverse. It's just ludicrous in the extreme to think that something as complex as bacterial flagellum, for example, just accidentally fell together all at once, which is exactly what it would have had to do or else it would not have worked at all and would have been completely invisible to the Evolutionary process because as a non-functioning system it would have given no survival advantage to the organism.



No. Because of the way they ignore the problems or change the theory in order to explain away the problem. Evolution is entirely unfalsifiable and as such is it not science but false religion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, where do viruses fall in regard to life. Are they animate or inanimate?

 

[Evoken]

Evolution is not a religion. Rather, it is creationism which is faith-based. Evolution is neither a myth, but rather a proven scientific principle, accepted by all but a few fringe experts--who, by the way, likely base their disagreement on religious beliefs.

Sure, but why are Evolutionist (mostly atheists) so outraged when the simple (and scientific) idea of teaching the problems and lack of evidence about particular issues is proposed? Why are they so outraged by a book sticker that says this and calls Evolution a theory (which is what it is)?

Evolutionists who want to silence criticisms of Evolution are no different than religious fundamentalists and they do a diservice to science by turning a scientific theory into a sacred cow which is to be kept from any form of honest critical analysis or criticism.

The whole controversy over Intelligent Design has not been one of honest scientific discussion as it should be. Rather ir has been a constant war raged by the Evolutionist to keep God (and religion in general) out of schools. By labeling Intelligent Design as Creationism in disguise, they have efectively shifting the attention of the people from the critique of the theory of Evolution, to a debate about how religious "superstition" will destroy science and doom the whole world..or something like that.


Valz

 

[bob b]

But Evolution can account for Irreducible Complexity, the subject isn't an issue really. See this article...
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dunk.cfm
Valz

Was that Pete Dunkelberg the one who is a student at Valencia Community College in Orlando?

He should submit his fine article to Science or Nature, for they are frothing at the mouth to get their hands on something that would disprove Intelligent Design.

 

[Evoken]

He should submit his fine article to Science or Nature, for they are frothing at the mouth to get their hands on something that would disprove Intelligent Design.

So what you mean is that there are no peer-reviewed papers refuting IC? I have seen a couple of papers dealing with IC, not sure if they have been published in Nature or Science.


Valz

 

[hatsoff]

As it should be! No such complex system has ever been observed to simply pop into existence out of nowhere

Firstly, life didn't just "pop into existence out of nowhere." It seems to have emerged as a result of chemical interactions. Second, the emergence of life, and the evolution of species, needs not be observed to be proven as likely. In fact, considering the scope of time necessary for such change, it is perfectly understandable that we have not observed most of it.

and despite what your article says (I admit to having not read it) Evolutionary theory plainly states that things evolve in tiny little incremental steps, not in gigantic jumps that hardly even qualify as jumps, they'd be more like vast epic trips on a rocket ship to galaxies far far away that only took a moment to traverse.

Evolution supposes incremental change, but large changes are not out of the question.

It's just ludicrous in the extreme to think that something as complex as bacterial flagellum, for example, just accidentally fell together all at once, which is exactly what it would have had to do or else it would not have worked at all and would have been completely invisible to the Evolutionary process because as a non-functioning system it would have given no survival advantage to the organism.

Nobody supposes that organisms "fell together all at once." Contrary to your assertion, it is perfectly reasonable for an organism to evolve via incremental changes. Ancestral species are not non-functioning, nor are they just daughter species plus or minus certain attributes. Irreducible complexity is a Christian idea which has been discredited by mainstream science.

No. Because of the way they ignore the problems or change the theory in order to explain away the problem.

Of course. As new evidence comes in, the theory is tweaked to account for it. That is perfectly reasonable. Scientists do not, however, ignore the potential problems.

Evolution is entirely unfalsifiable and as such is it not science but false religion.

Evolution is indeed falsifiable. Consider this example: homo sapiens, according to evolutionary theory, is a late addition to the earth's population. Find a homo sapiens fossil along side, say, a pre-Cambrian dinosaur, and you would have falsified that component of the theory.

 

[noguru]

Sure, but why are Evolutionist (mostly atheists) so outraged when the simple (and scientific) idea of teaching the problems and lack of evidence about particular issues is proposed? Why are they so outraged by a book sticker that says this and calls Evolution a theory (which is what it is)?

Evolutionists who want to silence criticisms of Evolution are no different than religious fundamentalists and they do a diservice to science by turning a scientific theory into a sacred cow which is to be kept from any form of honest critical analysis or criticism.

The whole controversy over Intelligent Design has not been one of honest scientific discussion as it should be. Rather ir has been a constant war raged by the Evolutionist to keep God (and religion in general) out of schools. By labeling Intelligent Design as Creationism in disguise, they have efectively shifting the attention of the people from the critique of the theory of Evolution, to a debate about how religious "superstition" will destroy science and doom the whole world..or something like that.


Valz

I agree.

 

[Clete]

Clete, where do viruses fall in regard to life. Are they animate or inanimate?

They move, maintian themselves and reproduce. It would seem they are alive.

Why do you ask?

 

[Clete]

Firstly, life didn't just "pop into existence out of nowhere." It seems to have emerged as a result of chemical interactions.

For "emerged" read "popped into existence out of nowhere". The point is that you have non living inanimate objects which suddenly are alive according to evolution.

Second, the emergence of life, and the evolution of species, needs not be observed to be proven as likely. In fact, considering the scope of time necessary for such change, it is perfectly understandable that we have not observed most of it.

As I said - unfalsifiable.

Evolution supposes incremental change, but large changes are not out of the question.

Large and inticately complex chagnes are entirely out of the question. So says Darwin himself.

Nobody supposes that organisms "fell together all at once." Contrary to your assertion, it is perfectly reasonable for an organism to evolve via incremental changes. Ancestral species are not non-functioning, nor are they just daughter species plus or minus certain attributes. Irreducible complexity is a Christian idea which has been discredited by mainstream science.

No it hasn't. It's been ignored. It's been swept under the rug and laughed at but it has not been discredited in any scientific manner. Look at the image I posted in my previous post. That system cannot be "minus certain attributes" and still work at all. It is irreducably complex. That means there is no simpler version possible that would still work.

Of course. As new evidence comes in, the theory is tweaked to account for it.

No. That's not what I'm talking about and you know it.
The scientific community turns an intentional deaf ear to any argument or evidence against the theory of evolution. It is impossible to falsify because those who espouse it won't entertain the idea that it is false. It is not a theory it is a dogma.

"Evolution is a fact, it actually happened." _Carl Sagan (Cosmos)

That is perfectly reasonable. Scientists do not, however, ignore the potential problems.

Oh yes they do. Try to purchase the Nova program on IC and see if it can be bought. It can't! At least not from PBS. They won't air it any longer, they won't sell the episode, they'll barely acknowledge that it even was ever produced. IC has been shelved, by the scientific community and it will continue to be ignored for God only knows how long.

Evolution is indeed falsifiable. Consider this example: homo sapiens, according to evolutionary theory, is a late addition to the earth's population. Find a homo sapiens fossil along side, say, a pre-Cambrian dinosaur, and you would have falsified that component of the theory.

No way! You can't possible beleive this. If such a fossil were found one or the other would somehow be proven to be something else other than what it obviously is.

There is such evidence in existence by the way. Human foot print right next to obviously dinsour foot prints. And guess what? It doesn't convince any one of anything. It's explained away or simply ignored as "interesting but less than proof" or some other such nonsense.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Johnny]

How do the systems in a cell know how to do the complex things that they do if not via the information encoded in the DNA?

Indeed, all of the cell's functions are ultimately controlled by its DNA. But this is just because it controls the creation of proteins which ultimately form the control systems. So it really is "just" the creation of proteins that DNA controls.

 

[Johnny]

No way! You can't possible beleive this. If such a fossil were found one or the other would somehow be proven to be something else other than what it obviously is.

If such a thing as he mentioned were ever found, and it was a verifiable find, it would rock the foundations of modern evolutionary theory.

There is such evidence in existence by the way. Human foot print right next to obviously dinsour foot prints. And guess what? It doesn't convince any one of anything. It's explained away or simply ignored as "interesting but less than proof" or some other such nonsense.

That's because the evidence just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It never fails. Even creationist sources such as AiG recommend not using that argument.

No it hasn't. It's been ignored. It's been swept under the rug and laughed at but it has not been discredited in any scientific manner.

No, it's been discredited rather thoroughly in scientific literature.

That system cannot be "minus certain attributes" and still work at all. It is irreducably complex. That means there is no simpler version possible that would still work.

What about the parts: could they have had other functions in the past? This is the primary weakness in the IC argument. IC ignores cooption, undoubtedly one of the key features of evolution. In fact, the bacterial flagellum was likely coopted from a type III secretory system (in actuality they probably share an ancestory). As a secretory system, the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. You can start removing components and it still functions--just not as well. There is another secretory system which was also coopted into a motility system: the gliding of cyanobacteria. There's a lot of good resources on the web.

 

[hatsoff]

For "emerged" read "popped into existence out of nowhere". The point is that you have non living inanimate objects which suddenly are alive according to evolution.

Not necessarily suddenly. We really aren't quite sure how it happened, and until new evidence comes in we won't be able to narrow the scope of possibilities by very much.

As I said - unfalsifiable.

We were talking about observations, not falsifiability. Moreover, evolution is not unobservable, exactly, but simply has not yet been observed.

Large and inticately complex chagnes are entirely out of the question. So says Darwin himself.

I'm not sure how you define "large" and "complex," but the changes that take place in evolution certainly vary as to their impact.

No it hasn't. It's been ignored. It's been swept under the rug and laughed at but it has not been discredited in any scientific manner.

It has never survived peer review, nor has it been accepted by the scientific community. Various responses by experts have been published which discredit ID and IC alike. There's not much else to do about bad science.

Look at the image I posted in my previous post. That system cannot be "minus certain attributes" and still work at all. It is irreducably complex. That means there is no simpler version possible that would still work.

Well, I'm not a bacteria expert, so I can't refute your claim in too much detail. I can tell you that the mother species needn't have been "minus" any attributes, but rather "plus" them. The attributes themselves might have been a bit different, rather than simply nonexistent. There are any number of possibilities, all of which disprove IC.

No. That's not what I'm talking about and you know it.
The scientific community turns an intentional deaf ear to any argument or evidence against the theory of evolution. It is impossible to falsify because those who espouse it won't entertain the idea that it is false. It is not a theory it is a dogma.

That claim pops up now and then, but there's no proof for it. Science consistently reinforces the principles of evolution, and so scientists consistently believe it to be true. There's no dark conspiracy within the scientific community to hide the horrible truth of creationism. There's no evolutionist "religion." Scientists almost always strive to stay unbiased and honest, hence the reliability of their collective conclusions.

Oh yes they do. Try to purchase the Nova program on IC and see if it can be bought. It can't! At least not from PBS. They won't air it any longer, they won't sell the episode, they'll barely acknowledge that it even was ever produced. IC has been shelved, by the scientific community and it will continue to be ignored for God only knows how long.

About the Nova special, it may have been pulled because it presented false information. Maybe PBS had another reason, though. Who knows? In any case, the discontinuation of a television program is not evidence that the scientific community is suppressing ID or IC.

No way! You can't possible beleive this. If such a fossil were found one or the other would somehow be proven to be something else other than what it obviously is.

Why would you think that? It would obviously be a huge find, published in all media outlets and fought over by scientists. It would require a major re-adjustment of established scientific principles. Of course, none of that would ever happen because, while evolution is falsifiable, it is most certainly not false.

There is such evidence in existence by the way. Human foot print right next to obviously dinsour foot prints. And guess what? It doesn't convince any one of anything. It's explained away or simply ignored as "interesting but less than proof" or some other such nonsense.

I'm afraid you've been taken in. If you're interested, I suggest reading this short article which concisely relates the story of the Paluxy prints, and how they came to be associated with creationism. In short, the so-called "human footprints" were actually no such thing. Even creationists usually concede that. Nobody ignored the find, but creationists misrepresented it and even lied about it.

 

[Letsargue]

One often hears arguments on forums that chimp DNA is 98.5% the same as human DNA.

Can this be true?

It might depend on how one arrives at such a percentage.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i4f.htm

---A Turnip is about 95%; that don't mean a thing unless it's 100%. God is 100% The Word, We are suppose to be 100% the Word inwardly. Not 98.5%.which is a Donkey.
*
------------------Paul---
*

 

[Evoken]

As it should be! No such complex system has ever been observed to simply pop into existence out of nowhere and despite what your article says (I admit to having not read it)

But nobody is saying that they pop into existence out of nowhere, that is not what either the article or Evolution claims. In fact, a sudden appearence without any viable precursors would be quite fatal to Evolution. Just like in everthing, irreducible complexity evolved thru small sucessive steps driven by different mechanism. Unlike mechanical parts like a moustrap, all parts of a biological organism down to the smallest part is subject to Evolution.

While I accept the evolutionary explanation for IC, I admit that most of them are a bit weak. Hopefully further research will yield stronger and more evidentially supported pathways for the Evolution of IC structures.

It's just ludicrous in the extreme to think that something as complex as bacterial flagellum, for example, just accidentally fell together all at once, which is exactly what it would have had to do or else it would not have worked at all and would have been completely invisible to the Evolutionary process because as a non-functioning system it would have given no survival advantage to the organism.

There have been several papers written on the Evolution of the flagellum and on closer inspection it does not appears to be IC at all.

No. Because of the way they ignore the problems or change the theory in order to explain away the problem. Evolution is entirely unfalsifiable and as such is it not science but false religion.

Evolution is certainly falsiable, find a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian (for example), that would falsify Evolution.

As far as Evolution being adjusted and fine tuned as new evidence is found, that is a good thing and is a sign of healthy science. Evolution , just like all scientific theories is always open to revision and correction as new evidence is found. So, I am not sure why this is seen as a problem.


Valz

 

[Clete]

What about the parts: could they have had other functions in the past?

NO!!!!!

If any one part of a bat's sonar system is missing the whole damn thing is worthless and the bat runs slap-bang into every tree it gets near and is completely unable to feed itself.

If a single tiny little piece of a bacterial flagellum isn't present performing its function flawlessly, the bacterium is immobilized and the flagellum is a big fat waste of biological resources which took 30 interacting proteins to build and 20 more to help assemble every one of which was essential to the task.

If any minute part of the blood pressure regulatory system in the head of a giraffe stops functioning all the blood vessels in the giraffe's head go POP the first time it bends over to take a drink.

THIS IS WHY THEY CALL THE SYSTEMS IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!!!

It means that the systems are complex (in some cases wildly so) but are at the same time as simple as they can possibly be and still function AT ALL.

If a biological system does not function then it gives no survival advantage to the organism and thus no way for natural selection to preserve the non-functioning system. A flagellum that is only partly there is totally invisible to natural selection and thus evolution cannot account for any such irreducibly complex biological system. It's not that it hasn't explained it YET, it's that it CANNOT explain it - period. The whole nature of evolutionary theory would actual predict that no such system exists, which is a point that Darwin spent some considerable amount of time talking about and even went so far as to say that if any such system where found in nature that it would falsify his theory. The problem is that modern science simply tweaks whatever part of either the evidence or the theory it needs to tweak in order for the problem to go away and have thus turned Evolution into an unfalsifiable religion instead of science.

"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." (Charles Darwin, 1872, p170)


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[bob b]

But nobody is saying that they pop into existence out of nowhere, that is not what either the article or Evolution claims. In fact, a sudden appearence without any viable precursors would be quite fatal to Evolution.

Apparently not.
See the quotations by paleontologists I posted on the thread on genetic switches.

“Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.” Lyall Watson, “The Water People,” Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.

. “At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids.” Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.

Also Walt Brown at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html

 

[Turbo]

Clete, POTD :first:

 

[Johnny]

NO!!!!!

YES!!!!!.

If a single tiny little piece of a bacterial flagellum isn't present performing its function flawlessly, the bacterium is immobilized and the flagellum is a big fat waste of biological resources which took 30 interacting proteins to build and 20 more to help assemble every one of which was essential to the task.

It appears my point went right over your head. The flagellum also functions as a secretory system which is not irreducibly complex.

If any minute part of the blood pressure regulatory system in the head of a giraffe stops functioning all the blood vessels in the giraffe's head go POP the first time it bends over to take a drink.

If any part of your blood clotting system fails you're in a lot of trouble. So what? This doesn't automatically mean it's irreducibly complex.

THIS IS WHY THEY CALL THE SYSTEMS IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!!!

Thank you, but I assure you that I've done far more reading on the topic than you. I do not need an elementary explanation.

It means that the systems are complex (in some cases wildly so) but are at the same time as simple as they can possibly be and still function AT ALL.

I understand this.

If a biological system does not function then it gives no survival advantage to the organism and thus no way for natural selection to preserve the non-functioning system.

Indeed.

A flagellum that is only partly there is totally invisible to natural selection and thus evolution cannot account for any such irreducibly complex biological system.

Wrong, a flagellum that is partially there functions as a partially working secretory system. Did you not read?

 

[Johnny]

Clete, POTD :first:

This does not deserve POTD. Anyone can rehash a textbook Behe argument. Clete failed to address cooption completely.

 

[Evoken]

If a single tiny little piece of a bacterial flagellum isn't present performing its function flawlessly, the bacterium is immobilized and the flagellum is a big fat waste of biological resources which took 30 interacting proteins to build and 20 more to help assemble every one of which was essential to the task.

This has been demonstrated to be false already. see:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html

If a biological system does not function then it gives no survival advantage to the organism and thus no way for natural selection to preserve the non-functioning system.

Agreed, but what most IC proponents do is that they ignore the fact that individual parts can often change functions.

It's not that it hasn't explained it YET, it's that it CANNOT explain it - period. The whole nature of evolutionary theory would actual predict that no such system exists, which is a point that Darwin spent some considerable amount of time talking about and even went so far as to say that if any such system where found in nature that it would falsify his theory.

Why do you assert that it cannot explain it? The point still remains that if any complex system could not have evolved thru gradual sucessive steps then this would pose a fatal problem to Evolution. But such system has not been found, the systems that are advanced as IC are not IC on closer inspection and their Evolution is possible.

Now, the problem I see for Evolution with this issue is that organs do not get fossilized. because of this there is no and there CANNOT be any fossil evidence showing the gradual Evolution of the flagellum (or any other organism), this is also the case for all invertebrate animals (another issue for Evolution). That being the case, Evolution is limited on relying on genetic similartiies and on looking for a more simple variation of a flagellum in nature in order ot evolve from it into the most complex one.

It is quite easy to find something like a simple eye in nature and imagine a pathway by which a more complex and sophisticated eye came to be. But without the fossil evidence to support the individual steps (other than more examples from nature) and without any real live demonstrations of it taking place, the proposed pathways cannot be considered as anything higher than an hypothesis and remain as quite speculative as well. But given the fact that Evolution is the best explanation for the evidence and is also supported by it, the proposed pathways can be considered as the most likely scenario on how a particular IC system came to be, even if some details remain obscure.

It is good to keep in mind that just because there is no evolutionary explanation on how a particular system evolved (the flagellum in this case), it does not means that Evolution is wrong or false. It simply means that we currently do not know how it evolved, that admission does not overthrows the evidence for Evolution, it's confirmed predictions, observations, etc. It is just a small detail in need of more evidence and research.


Valz