Chimps are 98.5% human. (NOT)

[Evoken]

Standard bob b argument. Lets get things back to abiogenesis cause science does not have specific answers therefore everything from that point forward regarding evolution is wrong.

Then he must understand that arguments against abiogenesis are not arguments against Evolution. They are two completelly different things. You could show the impossibility of abiogenesis and that would not even touch Evolution.


Valz

 

[bob b]

You did not point out to any particular details of the paper.

I didn't feel it was necessary. It should be up to those who believe that this is revelant to biology to show this, instead of asking skeptics to prove that it isn't. This stance is similar to asking that a computer simulation of some physical process correlates to it. For example, the results of a global warming simulation should agree with temperature measurements.

You seem to be arguing about abiogenesis and the origin of the universe, both things are irrelevant to Evolution and to the paper I linked to. You are also claiming that there is some conspiracy or intantionally deception behind it, why?

Any theory should have a logical starting point. Evolution wishes to rule out multiple starting points (Genesis) without talking about why.

I thought it relevant to point out that one of authors listed was a philosophy professor and writer of anti-creationist books.

Behe's reply amounts to nothing more than goal shifting. When he is shown that the flagellum is not IC and that it could have evolved he turns around to some other detail, when that is explained too, he moves to something else.

It was wishful thinking to think that the flagellum is not an example of IC. To refute IC one must demonstrate that removing one component of a flagellum does not destroy the function. What Miller and others claim is that a different system, which has some proteins that are similar to the more complex system (which has a different function) disproves IC because it suggests that the TTSS system might have evolved into the flagellar system

The TTSS argument is similar to eye evolution rationales. The fact that some eyes are more primitive than others is not compelling evidence that one type morphed into another. IC argues that removing a single component from an IC system destroys the function, which it does.

Does anyone familiar with biology still believe that an individual protein is a freestanding entity that has a biological (as opposed to a chemical) function in isolation, instead of being a component along with other components which together constitute a biological function?

If so then perhaps this is the key to the ease in which they are deceived by the claims of slow evolution via random mutations plus natural selection.

A nail has no useful isolated function until it is used as a component along with other components to provide a useful function. So it is with all systems. Excuse me if I sound patronizing here, but this is an absolutely basic and key point in the argument against macroevolution, and it is a favorite subject of mine due to my past training and experience in systems engineering, operations research and work with large scale computer-based systems found in manufacturing and other business enterprises.

Another example: an isolated computer instruction has no useful function until it is combined with other instructions into a minimum grouping that does have a useful function.

People talk about a gene for alcoholism. This is probably a sloppy way of looking at it. What is probably the case here is that there is a flaw (mutation) in a component (protein) which is part of some system which metabolizes alcohol, and for some reason beyond my area of expertise makes a person more likely to end up as an alcoholic.

The bottom line in all this rant of mine is that similar proteins in different systems is to be expected in a system that is intelligently designed, which is evident because this is essentially what all human designers, engineers, scientists and computer programmers do almost without thinking.

He now demands a step by step testable account of an atom by atom evolution of the flagellum. Just like Dembski he demands and insane level of detail that is simply irrelevant to the fact that Evolution can bring about IC structures.

Since people claim that evolution is a step-by-step process, it seems logical to me to ask that someone demonstrate the relevance of TTSS to the flagellum by giving a step-by-step account of how this might occur. Anything short of that seems to me to be handwaving.

Someone on another forum gave me an analogy to illustrate what Behe and Dembski are doing: "We understand Newtonian mechanics very very well. We know that every hit Derek Jeter gets is completely describable by Newtonian mechanics. Yet suppose someone said "OK, in the 3rd inning last night Jeter hit a single to left field. Unless you can fully account for exactly where that ball landed in the outfield, describing every force that acted on it at each moment from the time the ball left the pitcher's hand until it hit the ground, you have no reason to believe Newtonian mechanics is capable of accounting for the ball's flight." How idiotic is that? Yet that's what the IDiots want. In the immortal word of G. Ludwig Meyer, "Scroom!"

If someone claimed that Jeter might hit the ball over the Moon I would demand more evidence than someone simply saying that he hit it over the fence once and that suggests that it might be possible.

But Miller claims more than that. He claims that the existence of the TTSS system falsifies IC.

 

[hatsoff]

Any theory should have a logical starting point. Evolution wishes to rule out multiple starting points (Genesis) without talking about why.

How so?

I thought it relevant to point out that one of authors listed was a philosophy professor and writer of anti-creationist books.

Most evolution experts are anti-creationist.

It was wishful thinking to think that the flagellum is not an example of IC.

The vast majority of experts would disagree.

To refute IC one must demonstrate that removing one component of a flagellum does not destroy the function.

That is simply not true. First of all, IC needs no refutation on the case-by-case level. It can be disproven at the conceptual level. Second, IC presupposes that evolution takes place as successive additions, and fails to account for subtractions.

What Miller and others claim is that a different system, which has some proteins that are similar to the more complex system (which has a different function) disproves IC because it suggests that the TTSS system might have evolved into the flagellar system

I doubt they claimed that, exactly. In any case, it really doesn't make a difference whether or not we have a specific model detailing a possible evolutionary path for every single biological system.

The TTSS argument is similar to eye evolution rationales. The fact that some eyes are more primitive than others is not compelling evidence that one type morphed into another. IC argues that removing a single component from an IC system destroys the function, which it does.

It argues that mistakenly.

Does anyone familiar with biology still believe that an individual protein is a freestanding entity that has a biological (as opposed to a chemical) function in isolation, instead of being a component along with other components which together constitute a biological function?

If so then perhaps this is the key to the ease in which they are deceived by the claims of slow evolution via random mutations plus natural selection.

A nail has no useful isolated function until it is used as a component along with other components to provide a useful function. So it is with all systems. Excuse me if I sound patronizing here, but this is an absolutely basic and key point in the argument against macroevolution, and it is a favorite subject of mine due to my past training and experience in systems engineering, operations research and work with large scale computer-based systems found in manufacturing and other business enterprises.

While I'm sure you've had a long and thought-provoking career, it does not compel me to reject mainstream science in favor of religious-driven pseudoscience.

 

[bob b]

How so?
Most evolution experts are anti-creationist.The vast majority of experts would disagree.
That is simply not true. First of all, IC needs no refutation on the case-by-case level. It can be disproven at the conceptual level. Second, IC presupposes that evolution takes place as successive additions, and fails to account for subtractions.I doubt they claimed that, exactly. In any case, it really doesn't make a difference whether or not we have a specific model detailing a possible evolutionary path for every single biological system.
It argues that mistakenly.While I'm sure you've had a long and thought-provoking career, it does not compel me to reject mainstream science in favor of religious-driven pseudoscience.

Summary of the hatsoff logical argument:

"You're wrong and I think a lot of people agree with me."

 

[hatsoff]

Summary of the hatsoff logical argument:

"You're wrong and I think a lot of people agree with me."

Typical evasion.

 

[bob b]

Typical evasion.

Try posting something with some intellectual content.

Incidentally, you may be getting too many of your ideas from sites like Wikipedia.

Irreducible complexity is the controversial idea that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved naturally from simpler, or "less complete", predecessors, usually based on the idea that a structure's constituent parts would be useless prior to their current state. An "irreducibly complex" system is defined as one that could not function if it were any simpler, and therefore could not possibly have been formed by successive additions to a precursor system with the same functionality. The concept is generally used as an argument for the intelligent design of life, and as a counterargument used by creationists against the theory of evolution.
Irreducible complexity is a strongly disputed concept, and is viewed as pseudoscience by the overwhelming majority in the scientific community.[1]

Interestingly, reference 1 discusses ID not IC. A bit sloppy I would say.

Actually Behe defines the concept he originated as "an irreducibly complex system is a system that would cease to function if any one of its components was removed".

In practice this means that any step-by-step process could not create an IC system, because the next to last step prior to reaching the final IC system would not be a system which had a function, and hence natural selection would tend to eliminate it.

It seems to me that any argument concerning irreducible complexity should focus on whether a particular system is actually irreducibly complex or else whether evolution is or is not a step by step process driven by natural selection, because the concept itself is obviously true by definition.

 

[hatsoff]

Try posting something with some intellectual content.

I have done so many times in this very thread. On the rare occasion you actually respond, you usually revert to some sort of sarcastic remark such as that above.

Incidentally, you may be getting too many of your ideas from sites like Wikipedia.

I do consult wikipedia occasionally, because it's usually very concise. In this thread, however, I have used other sources, and not wikipedia.

Actually Behe defines the concept he originated as "an irreducibly complex system is a system that would cease to function if any one of its components was removed".

In practice this means that any step-by-step process could not create an IC system, because the next to last step prior to reaching the final IC system would not be a system which had a function, and hence natural selection would tend eliminate it.

Again, that presupposes there are no subtractions. It also presupposes that, even if the last evolutionary step was an addition, ignorance of its nature proves IC.

It seems to me that any argument concerning irreducible complexity should focus on whether a particular system is actually irreducibly complex or else whether evolution is or is not a step by step process driven by natural selection, because the concept itself is obviously true by definition.

Except that IC is impossible to prove in any individual case.

 

[bob b]

Again, that presupposes there are no subtractions. It also presupposes that, even if the last evolutionary step was an addition, ignorance of its nature proves IC.

Irreducible complexity is a definition which appears to be true by definition provided one assumes a step by step process and natural selection.

You are incorrect that it does not cover the case of a system which may have more parts than necessary and can lose a part to arrive at a functioning system. In that case the system which had the extra part would not be an irreducibly complex system, because it was able to lose one part and was still a functioning system.

You are wrong that IC does not presuppose subtractions, because that is the entire point of an IC system: it is only an IC system if the loss of any part yields a non-functioning system.

Except that IC is impossible to prove in any individual case.

The bacterial flagellum has been advanced as the "icon" of IC. So why can't evolutionists disprove it? Can you remove any one component from the bacterial flagellum and still have a functioning system?

Ken Miller didn't disprove IC because he didn't try to show that one can remove any one part of the bacterial flagellum and still yield a functioning system (the definition of an IC system). What he did was to show that there were simpler systems that could function, and by the way the TTSS system contains 10 or so proteins that are similar to 10 of the 40 or so proteins that comprise the bacterial flagellum. He then left the problem of how the TTSS could evolve step by step into the bacterial flagellum to the student as an exercise.
Nice try but no cigar Ken.

 

[Evoken]

I didn't feel it was necessary. It should be up to those who believe that this is revelant to biology to show this, instead of asking skeptics to prove that it isn't. This stance is similar to asking that a computer simulation of some physical process correlates to it. For example, the results of a global warming simulation should agree with temperature measurements.

I see that you have not taken the time to read the paper, here is what it says, right after honestly admiting that... "it is difficult to provide a complete account of the origin of any complex feature owing to the extinction of intermediate forms, imperfection of the fossil record, and incomplete knowledge of the genetic and developmental mechanisms that produce such features." it then says..."To examine the evolutionary origin of a complex feature in much greater detail than has previously been possible, we have performed experiments with digital organisms—computer programs that selfreplicate, mutate and compete." and "By using this tractable system, we aim to shed light on principles relevant to any evolving system."

So, the purpose of the whole paper is to understand HOW complex features evolve and it runs an experiment using the Theory of Evolution and it's well known mechanisms in order to see if it is possible, the paper demonstrates that it is, dealing another blow to IC.

Do the IDers have a similar program showing HOW the Intelligent Designer made an IC structure? They don't and I dare to say that they are not even trying to do it.

Any theory should have a logical starting point. Evolution wishes to rule out multiple starting points (Genesis) without talking about why.

Evolution does not "wishes" to rule out anything, it simply explains and accounts for the data we observe. But if you want to know "why" Evolution "wishes" to rule out multiple starting points see what the evidence says...

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#fundamental_unity

I thought it relevant to point out that one of authors listed was a philosophy professor and writer of anti-creationist books.

That is just poisoning the well.

It was wishful thinking to think that the flagellum is not an example of IC. To refute IC one must demonstrate that removing one component of a flagellum does not destroy the function.

Great, next thing you'll say is that humans are IC because if you remove their brain then they cannot "think" (or live, but thats tragic). Behe's claim is that if you remove any of it's parts, not the specifics parts he personally likes for his arbitrary choosen function, then the system will not function at all. But we have seen that this is not true, but Behe likes IC so he seeks to preserve it by engaging in goal shifting, so now he gets to choose the function and the parts you can or cannot remove. Nobody is going to play along with his game.

The TTSS argument is similar to eye evolution rationales. The fact that some eyes are more primitive than others is not compelling evidence that one type morphed into another.

But this is just a simplistic view and it is overlooking other considerations such as the evolutionary history of the organism, location in the universal tree, genetic relationships like similarities and differences and also age (which one is older than the other). By looking at these things then a pathway using known evolutionary mechanisms is proposed as an explanation of the facts we observe, that is what a scientific theory like Evolution does. That you do not find the explanation "compelling" is not really relevant to the fact that Evolution can account for and explain the facts we observe.

Does anyone familiar with biology still believe that an individual protein is a freestanding entity that has a biological (as opposed to a chemical) function in isolation, instead of being a component along with other components which together constitute a biological function?

But that is what Behe does, specially since his whole argument for IC completelly ignores the fact that parts can change function or even perform multiple functions which can be coopeted, expanded or supressed. The one doing the bad biology is Behe and the ID camp.

If so then perhaps this is the key to the ease in which they are deceived by the claims of slow evolution via random mutations plus natural selection.

No, the one being deceived are the ones who think that IC is even an issue for Evolution.

Since people claim that evolution is a step-by-step process, it seems logical to me to ask that someone demonstrate the relevance of TTSS to the flagellum by giving a step-by-step account of how this might occur. Anything short of that seems to me to be handwaving..

But the model has been given already, the complain you have is that it is not a step by step, atom by atom account, but since when is that necessary? It is good to have as much detail as possible but since we have some limitations then we cannot provide the insane level of detail that Behe, Dembski and you demand.

But do not fool youself, that has no relevance to the validity of the proposed pathways, the pathways provide a way by which they came about using only known and tested mechanisms and stands as the most accurate description of how such an organism may have come about given what we know. If you think otherwise, you will need to provide an alternate explanation that not only provides a pathway or a means by which an IC structure came about, but it would also have to be SUPERIOR to the evolutionary explanation, if not, then by simple scientific logic, Evolution wins by default given the overwhelming evidence that supports it.


Valz

 

[Evoken]

Except that IC is impossible to prove in any individual case.

Actually there are IC systems like the Venus Flytrap for example, but they can be shown to have evolved by know mechanisms. That is what Behe can co seem to overlook.


Valz

 

[bob b]

Actually there are IC systems like the Venus Flytrap for example, but they can be shown to have evolved by know mechanisms. That is what Behe can co seem to overlook.Valz

1) Has Behe stated that the Venus Fly Trap is an irreducibly complex system?

2) Has Behe stated that the Venus Fly Trap cannot have evolved?

 

[Evoken]

1) Has Behe stated that the Venus Fly Trap is an irreducibly complex system?

2) Has Behe stated that the Venus Fly Trap cannot have evolved?

I see, so only Behe gets to say which systems are IC. His game is even more twisted than I first imagined!


Valz

 

[Evoken]

By the way bob b, read the recently released statement on Evolution by the IAP...

http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution statement.pdf

Notice the list of 68 organizations from different parts of the world supporting that statement.


Valz

 

[bob b]

I see that you have not taken the time to read the paper, here is what it says, right after honestly admiting that... "it is difficult to provide a complete account of the origin of any complex feature owing to the extinction of intermediate forms, imperfection of the fossil record, and incomplete knowledge of the genetic and developmental mechanisms that produce such features." it then says..."To examine the evolutionary origin of a complex feature in much greater detail than has previously been possible, we have performed experiments with digital organisms—computer programs that selfreplicate, mutate and compete." and "By using this tractable system, we aim to shed light on principles relevant to any evolving system."

So, the purpose of the whole paper is to understand HOW complex features evolve and it runs an experiment using the Theory of Evolution and it's well known mechanisms in order to see if it is possible, the paper demonstrates that it is, dealing another blow to IC.

The paper is not claiming that "digital organisms" (whatever that means) are equivalent to biological organisms is it? I believe if I am not mistaken they would not go as far as you have in claiming that this "deals a blow" to IC. BTW I didn't read more than the first page of the paper because that is all that would load. So I am asking you whether the rest of it even mentioned irreducible complexity.

Do the IDers have a similar program showing HOW the Intelligent Designer made an IC structure? They don't and I dare to say that they are not even trying to do it.

You are correct on that point.

Evolution does not "wishes" to rule out anything, it simply explains and accounts for the data we observe.

Nonsense. Biologists are quite clear that they rule out an intelligent designer in their work. They wish to explain things using natural phenomena only because that is all science can work with (observe and experiment on).

But if you want to know "why" Evolution "wishes" to rule out multiple starting points see what the evidence says...

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#fundamental_unity

Great, next thing you'll say is that humans are IC because if you remove their brain then they cannot "think" (or live, but thats tragic). Behe's claim is that if you remove any of it's parts, not the specifics parts he personally likes for his arbitrary choosen function, then the system will not function at all. But we have seen that this is not true, but Behe likes IC so he seeks to preserve it by engaging in goal shifting, so now he gets to choose the function and the parts you can or cannot remove. Nobody is going to play along with his game.

Calm down. Behe has advanced the bacterial flagellum as being an example of irreducible complexity. He has stated his belief that it will not function if any one of its parts are removed. That is what the word "irreducible" means (can't reduce it or it won't work). Now if anyone can show that this is not the case then Behe would have to admit that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. Fair enough?

But this is just a simplistic view and it is overlooking other considerations such as the evolutionary history of the organism, location in the universal tree, genetic relationships like similarities and differences and also age (which one is older than the other). By looking at these things then a pathway using known evolutionary mechanisms is proposed as an explanation of the facts we observe, that is what a scientific theory like Evolution does. That you do not find the explanation "compelling" is not really relevant to the fact that Evolution can account for and explain the facts we observe.

I think you are worried that if there is something that is irreducibly complex then the whole evolutionary "house of cards" collapses. Let me assure you of one thing which you apparently do not understand: Michael Behe is a believer in evolution.

But that is what Behe does, specially since his whole argument for IC completelly ignores the fact that parts can change function or even perform multiple functions which can be coopeted, expanded or supressed. The one doing the bad biology is Behe and the ID camp.

As I previously explained, individual proteins do not perform biological functions in isolation. Only when they are part of a system of multiple proteins is a biological function performed. Failure to understand or accept this key point is a major barrier to understanding biology.

No, the one being deceived are the ones who think that IC is even an issue for Evolution.

IC is less an issue for evolution than it is for the concept of step by step slow changes by means of random mutations.

But the model has been given already, the complain you have is that it is not a step by step, atom by atom account, but since when is that necessary? It is good to have as much detail as possible but since we have some limitations then we cannot provide the insane level of detail that Behe, Dembski and you demand.

If we can focus the discussion on one thing at a time let me again emphasize that irreducible complexity is a definition which tells us when a system is irreducibly complex. If someone can demonstrate that removal of any one component yields a system which is functional then by definition that system is not irreducibly complex.

The question then is: is the bacterial flagellum irreducibly complex? Maybe, maybe not, but so far nobody has been able to show that it isn't. Perhaps the reason is that nobody seems to be trying to do an experiment which would remove one of the proteins which comprise this system and find out if it still functions. They are doing many other things and saying many other things, but nobody seems to be paying any attention to the definition Behe gave for an irreducibly complex system.

But do not fool youself, that has no relevance to the validity of the proposed pathways, the pathways provide a way by which they came about using only known and tested mechanisms and stands as the most accurate description of how such an organism may have come about given what we know. If you think otherwise, you will need to provide an alternate explanation that not only provides a pathway or a means by which an IC structure came about, but it would also have to be SUPERIOR to the evolutionary explanation, if not, then by simple scientific logic, Evolution wins by default given the overwhelming evidence that supports it.

Again you are jumping ahead by leaving the subject of irreducibly complex systems and whether the bacterial flagellum is an example of such a system. Apparently you must believe that if it is then evolution is doomed or something. Let me assure you once again that Michael Behe believes in evolution.

 

[bob b]

By the way bob b, read the recently released statement on Evolution by the IAP...

http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution statement.pdf

Notice the list of 68 organizations from different parts of the world supporting that statement.


Valz

Did you know that aeronautical scientists have proved that the bumblebee's wings are too small to support its flight?

The bumblebee doesn't know this and goes ahead and flies anyway.

 

[noguru]

Did you know that aeronautical scientists have proved that the bumblebee's wings are too small to support its flight?

The bumblebee doesn't know this and goes ahead and flies anyway.

Yeah, and? Science does not always have all the answers. Are you saying that there will never be a natural explanation for how bumble bees fly? Or that science has just not discovered it yet?

 

[bob b]

Yeah, and? Science does not always have all the answers. Are you saying that there will never be a natural explanation for how bumble bees fly? Or that science has just not discovered it yet?

Its a classic joke I first ran into in 1950. Valz was leaving the subject of irreducible complexity and trying the "argument by authority" so I threw in a joke to lighten things up.

Once we are finished with the subject of irreducible complexity and whether the bacterial flagellum is an example of one, then we can move on to other things such as what impact, if any, the existence of even one irreducibly complex system might have on NeoDarwinism, the concept of step by step slow changes via random mutations and natural selection.

 

[Evoken]

Again you are jumping ahead by leaving the subject of irreducibly complex systems and whether the bacterial flagellum is an example of such a system. Apparently you must believe that if it is then evolution is doomed or something. Let me assure you once again that Michael Behe believes in evolution.

Actually, if you take ID to it's logical conclusion, then it will lead you to YEC or even OEC but without macroevolution, think about it.

Ether that or as I have seen Dembski and Meyer say, it would still be Evolution thru Natural Selection anyway but with the small caveat that the designer started it all. In which case ID would be just Deism or something along those lines (ie. irrelevant).

I will reply to the rest of your post later, heading to work now.


Valz

 

[bob b]

Actually, if you take ID to it's logical conclusion, then it will lead you to YEC or even OEC but without macroevolution, think about it.

Ether that or as I have seen Dembski and Meyer say, it would still be Evolution thru Natural Selection anyway but with the small caveat that the designer started it all. In which case ID would be just Deism or something along those lines (ie. irrelevant).

I will reply to the rest of your post later, heading to work now.


Valz

There you go again, switching the topic !!

I made a comment about irreducible complexity (IC), and instead of answering me you switched the topic to Intelligent Design (ID) !!!

Irreducible complexity, (IC), by itself says nothing about how such a system might arise, even though some people (creationists, evolutionists or whatever) might erroneously think it might. All it says is that any complex system in which taking away any one part causes it to lose its normal function is defined as an irreducibly complex system.

How did such a system arise? Are there any such systems in lifeforms?

Good questions, but not ones that are a part of the definition of an irreducibly complex system.

Behe claims that the bacterial flagellum satisfies his definition of an irreducibly complex system.

If you do not agree please state why. Please do not go into a discussion about how such a system might have arisen, because that is not part of the definition of an irreducibly complex system. What I wish to do is to keep the discussion focused on whether the bacterial flagellum is or is not an irreducibly complex system.

Remember, just because a system is irreducibly complex does not mean that it had to be designed or that it could not have arisen naturally, because we don't need to discuss how such a system might have arisen to be able to recognize if a particular system matches the Behe definition of an irreducibly complex system.

 

[Johnny]

What I wish to do is to keep the discussion focused on whether the bacterial flagellum is or is not an irreducibly complex system.

You have to specify which bacteria we're going to discuss before this can proceed.