| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andrew" |
| Date: |
23 Dec 2006 11:53:38 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Basis of Evolution |
"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
news:Xns98A0794D3A5E9doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible in
complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
24 Dec 2006 01:44:22 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in news:C2ejh.2951$w91.1752
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
news:Xns98A0794D3A5E9doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible in
complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*=
The definition depends on who you ask and the context in which you ask.
That's a sure sign that there's an equivocation buried in there
somewhere.
On the one hand, ID creationists define as "irreducibly complex" any
system that fails if you remove one part. On the other hand, they define
as "irreducibly complex" any system that cannot arise by mutation and
natural selection. These are two DIFFERENT definitions and it is not
known if they have any overlap whatsoever.
I much prefer the definition that goes, "any system that cannot have
arisen by ANY evolutionary means from simpler systems." However....
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
On the contrary, give ME an example of any biological system that can be
categorically demonstrated to HAVE irreducible complexity. Otherwise
we're just talking about something someone imagined or made up and then
devised an equivocation to peddle.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
25 Dec 2006 01:33:46 AM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message news:Xns98A3776A69C88doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible in
complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*=
The definition depends on who you ask and the context in which you ask.
That's a sure sign that there's an equivocation buried in there somewhere.
On the one hand, ID creationists define as "irreducibly complex" any
system that fails if you remove one part. On the other hand, they define
as "irreducibly complex" any system that cannot arise by mutation and
natural selection. These are two DIFFERENT definitions and it is not
known if they have any overlap whatsoever.
Let's use definition # one (above) --> "any system that fails if you remove one part."
I much prefer the definition that goes, "any system that cannot have
arisen by ANY evolutionary means from simpler systems." However....
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
On the contrary, give ME an example of any biological system that
can be categorically demonstrated to HAVE irreducible complexity.
I can't think of any that don't have IC. So please show how
any biological system could not have irreducible complexity.
sys-tem (noun) : a regularly interacting or interdependent
group of items forming a unified whole
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
25 Dec 2006 02:19:54 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:u9Ljh.3582$yx6.690@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
news:Xns98A3776A69C88doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible
in complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*=
The definition depends on who you ask and the context in which you
ask. That's a sure sign that there's an equivocation buried in there
somewhere.
On the one hand, ID creationists define as "irreducibly complex" any
system that fails if you remove one part. On the other hand, they
define as "irreducibly complex" any system that cannot arise by
mutation and natural selection. These are two DIFFERENT definitions
and it is not known if they have any overlap whatsoever.
Let's use definition # one (above) --> "any system that fails if you
remove one part."
Then it's possible to PROVE that such systems can result from
evolutionary processes, contrary to the IDist assertion that they cannot.
I much prefer the definition that goes, "any system that cannot have
arisen by ANY evolutionary means from simpler systems." However....
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
On the contrary, give ME an example of any biological system that
can be categorically demonstrated to HAVE irreducible complexity.
I can't think of any that don't have IC. So please show how
any biological system could not have irreducible complexity.
You should have stopped after the first three words.
No biological system has EVER been demonstrated to have TRULY irreducible
complexity. Your definition above does not NECESSARILY comprise such
systems.
sys-tem (noun) : a regularly interacting or interdependent
group of items forming a unified whole
Yes, but in evolution there is no requirement that they be built by
stepwise addition. They can be built by other processes, such as
exaptation of redundant genetics and they can be built by the
accumulation of redundant features followed by their removal. This makes
the task of DEMONSTRATING that any biological system is TRULY irreducible
virtually impossible. It's on the same order as the task of proving that
there is no human being with some (reasonable) exact number of cells in
his body. You cannot prove such claims without fully exhausting the
universe of discourse and, with genetics, that universe quickly gets a
whole lot larger when you consider all POSSIBLE predecessors, not just
the narrow subset that can reach the present state through a single
addition.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
25 Dec 2006 08:53:31 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:19:54 GMT, in alt.atheism , Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> in
<Xns98A47D70E6931doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159> wrote:
[snip]
No biological system has EVER been demonstrated to have TRULY irreducible
complexity. Your definition above does not NECESSARILY comprise such
systems.
Actually, for some reasonable identifications of the parts there are
IC biological systems. Of course Muller predicted IC systems decades
ago based on evolution theory.
sys-tem (noun) : a regularly interacting or interdependent
group of items forming a unified whole
Yes, but in evolution there is no requirement that they be built by
stepwise addition. They can be built by other processes,
Actually, stepwise addition is the unusual method, most evolution is
by stepwise change.
such as
exaptation of redundant genetics and they can be built by the
accumulation of redundant features followed by their removal. This makes
the task of DEMONSTRATING that any biological system is TRULY irreducible
virtually impossible. It's on the same order as the task of proving that
there is no human being with some (reasonable) exact number of cells in
his body. You cannot prove such claims without fully exhausting the
universe of discourse and, with genetics, that universe quickly gets a
whole lot larger when you consider all POSSIBLE predecessors, not just
the narrow subset that can reach the present state through a single
addition.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
25 Dec 2006 07:08:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 07:33:46 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> in
<u9Ljh.3582$yx6.690@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message news:Xns98A3776A69C88doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible in
complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*=
The definition depends on who you ask and the context in which you ask.
That's a sure sign that there's an equivocation buried in there somewhere.
On the one hand, ID creationists define as "irreducibly complex" any
system that fails if you remove one part. On the other hand, they define
as "irreducibly complex" any system that cannot arise by mutation and
natural selection. These are two DIFFERENT definitions and it is not
known if they have any overlap whatsoever.
Let's use definition # one (above) --> "any system that fails if you remove one part."
Not just one part, but *any* one part. That is the "irreducible" part.
So humans are not IC.
I much prefer the definition that goes, "any system that cannot have
arisen by ANY evolutionary means from simpler systems." However....
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
On the contrary, give ME an example of any biological system that
can be categorically demonstrated to HAVE irreducible complexity.
I can't think of any that don't have IC. So please show how
any biological system could not have irreducible complexity.
sys-tem (noun) : a regularly interacting or interdependent
group of items forming a unified whole
Now nice. Useless though. When considering IC is the heart a system or
a part? Do we consider the lungs as part of the system? How about the
mouth and nose? How about the outside air? What is the way we can
determine what is and what is not part of that system? If the
determination of system is subjective then it can't tell us about
evolutionary history.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wombat" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 12:58:47 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
news:Xns98A0794D3A5E9doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible in
complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
It's your claim -YOU prove it.
Wombat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 05:37:27 PM |
|
|
"Wombat" wrote in message news:1166900327.511257.166070@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible in
complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
It's your claim -YOU prove it.
No, it's Dave's claim that -no- biological system is irreducibly complex.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
24 Dec 2006 01:45:12 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:X4jjh.3092$w91.2099@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Wombat" wrote in message
news:1166900327.511257.166070@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible
in complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
It's your claim -YOU prove it.
No, it's Dave's claim that -no- biological system is irreducibly
complex.
No, it's my claim that no biological system can be SHOWN to be
irreducibly complex. Your god is in the gaps again.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 08:01:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 23:37:27 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> in
<X4jjh.3092$w91.2099@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Wombat" wrote in message news:1166900327.511257.166070@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible in
complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
It's your claim -YOU prove it.
No, it's Dave's claim that -no- biological system is irreducibly complex.
It is my claim that being IC is not evidence that something did not
evolve. Even Behe says that IC systems can evolve. He just handwaves
that somehow it is "unlikely" (though he never explains why) that the
would evolve by "direct" evolution (though he never tells us what
direct evolution is).
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 07:45:32 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 17:53:38 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
news:Xns98A0794D3A5E9doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible in
complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
Look it up in Behe's book.
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
All of them.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 01:29:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 17:53:38 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> in
<C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
news:Xns98A0794D3A5E9doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible in
complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's Black
Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really has long
intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is IC if it is
such that the removal of any part of the system would cause the system
to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and others) this is
intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to determine what is the
function, parts, or system in question. Depending on how *we* analyze
something it can have two parts and be IC or 10 and not be IC.* There
are other problems. For example, the current IC nature does not speak
to the evolutionary past of the system since parts and function and
system and environment all *change* over time and evolution is about
the *change* of system, not the stepwise addition of new parts to
produce the same result.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts does a
knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the blade
as a handle.
B: 3, blade, tang, and handle. Again, without the tang the blade does
not hold to the handle.
C: 6, blade, tang, point, back, body, edge, and handle.
Now go and read a knife making book and find out that a knife can have
dozens of parts. The number all depends on how we analyze the system.
If the category, IC or not-IC, depends on how *we* look at it then the
category can't tell us about the evolutionary history.
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
Any one you want. Human beings, for example, are a "system" and not
IC. Blood clotting, for a biochemical example, is not IC.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 05:56:19 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message news:3g0ro2hs9cjkhpqcf0ad1j2jd7ca6d156m@4ax.com...
"Andrew" in <C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible in
complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's Black
Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really has long
intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is IC if it is
such that the removal of any part of the system would cause the system
to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and others) this is
intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to determine what is the
function, parts, or system in question. Depending on how *we* analyze
something it can have two parts and be IC or 10 and not be IC.* There
are other problems. For example, the current IC nature does not speak
to the evolutionary past of the system since parts and function and
system and environment all *change* over time and evolution is about
the *change* of system, not the stepwise addition of new parts to
produce the same result.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts does a
knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the blade
as a handle.
Your example fails the criteria of the above definition.
Try again using something like a mousetrap, which is
far less complex than any living system, or any living
cell.
B: 3, blade, tang, and handle. Again, without the tang the blade does
not hold to the handle.
C: 6, blade, tang, point, back, body, edge, and handle.
Now go and read a knife making book and find out that a knife can have
dozens of parts. The number all depends on how we analyze the system.
If the category, IC or not-IC, depends on how *we* look at it then the
category can't tell us about the evolutionary history.
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
Any one you want. Human beings, for example, are a "system" and not
IC. Blood clotting, for a biochemical example, is not IC.
Human beings being the "system" (above) ~are~ dependent on
blood clotting!
Therefore your own example is evidence showing that biological
systems -are- irreducibly complex.
Thank you.
Matt Silberstein
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
24 Dec 2006 01:49:44 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:Dmjjh.6133$X72.501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message
news:3g0ro2hs9cjkhpqcf0ad1j2jd7ca6d156m@4ax.com...
"Andrew" in <C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible
in complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's
Black Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really has
long intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is IC if
it is such that the removal of any part of the system would cause the
system to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and others) this
is intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to determine what is the
function, parts, or system in question. Depending on how *we* analyze
something it can have two parts and be IC or 10 and not be IC.* There
are other problems. For example, the current IC nature does not speak
to the evolutionary past of the system since parts and function and
system and environment all *change* over time and evolution is about
the *change* of system, not the stepwise addition of new parts to
produce the same result.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts does a
knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the
blade as a handle.
Your example fails the criteria of the above definition.
Try again using something like a mousetrap, which is
far less complex than any living system, or any living
cell.
Actually, it's feasible to demonstrate the stepwise evolution of the
mousetrap beginning with the simplest "trap" of throwing rocks at the
mouse.
ID is not about doing or teaching science. It is about the politics of
theocracy and about piling on the sophistry until your opponents tire of
the argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.
Give it up. The plutocrats who control American society will NEVER
permit you to have your theocracy. But they will play you like a fiddle
against anything else that threatens their hegemony. Theocracies are bad
for profits (and for prophets).
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
25 Dec 2006 02:16:14 AM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message news:Xns98A378534D6BAdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:Dmjjh.6133$X72.501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message
news:3g0ro2hs9cjkhpqcf0ad1j2jd7ca6d156m@4ax.com...
"Andrew" in <C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible
in complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's
Black Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really has
long intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is IC if
it is such that the removal of any part of the system would cause the
system to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and others) this
is intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to determine what is the
function, parts, or system in question. Depending on how *we* analyze
something it can have two parts and be IC or 10 and not be IC.* There
are other problems. For example, the current IC nature does not speak
to the evolutionary past of the system since parts and function and
system and environment all *change* over time and evolution is about
the *change* of system, not the stepwise addition of new parts to
produce the same result.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts does a
knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the
blade as a handle.
Your example fails the criteria of the above definition.
Try again using something like a mousetrap, which is
far less complex than any living system, or any living
cell.
Actually, it's feasible to demonstrate the stepwise evolution of the
mousetrap beginning with the simplest "trap" of throwing rocks at the
mouse.
So you believe that this can be "feasibly demonstrated"? : - D
ID is not about doing or teaching science. It is about the politics of
theocracy and about piling on the sophistry until your opponents tire of
the argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.
Give it up. The plutocrats who control American society will NEVER
permit you to have your theocracy. But they will play you like a fiddle
against anything else that threatens their hegemony. Theocracies are bad
for profits (and for prophets).
You may be right about theocracies being bad, but that's no
reason to embrace the 'goo to you' evolutionary falsehood.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
25 Dec 2006 02:15:24 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:iNLjh.6773$X72.3968@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A378534D6BAdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:Dmjjh.6133$X72.501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message
news:3g0ro2hs9cjkhpqcf0ad1j2jd7ca6d156m@4ax.com...
"Andrew" in <C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is
"irreducible in complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's
Black Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really has
long intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is IC if
it is such that the removal of any part of the system would cause
the system to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and others)
this is intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to determine what is
the function, parts, or system in question. Depending on how *we*
analyze something it can have two parts and be IC or 10 and not be
IC.* There are other problems. For example, the current IC nature
does not speak to the evolutionary past of the system since parts
and function and system and environment all *change* over time and
evolution is about the *change* of system, not the stepwise
addition of new parts to produce the same result.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts does a
knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the
blade as a handle.
Your example fails the criteria of the above definition.
Try again using something like a mousetrap, which is
far less complex than any living system, or any living
cell.
Actually, it's feasible to demonstrate the stepwise evolution of the
mousetrap beginning with the simplest "trap" of throwing rocks at the
mouse.
So you believe that this can be "feasibly demonstrated"? : - D
Yes, actually.
ID is not about doing or teaching science. It is about the politics
of theocracy and about piling on the sophistry until your opponents
tire of the argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.
Give it up. The plutocrats who control American society will NEVER
permit you to have your theocracy. But they will play you like a
fiddle against anything else that threatens their hegemony.
Theocracies are bad for profits (and for prophets).
You may be right about theocracies being bad, but that's no
reason to embrace the 'goo to you' evolutionary falsehood.
How do you know it's a falsehood? Because some jerk-off with no
knowledge and a nice suit told you so from a pulpit?
And why the "goo to you" appelation which is clearly DESIGNED to be a
mockery of the actual science?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sugien" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
25 Dec 2006 05:11:10 PM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A47CAD45BE4doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:iNLjh.6773$X72.3968@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A378534D6BAdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:Dmjjh.6133$X72.501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message
news:3g0ro2hs9cjkhpqcf0ad1j2jd7ca6d156m@4ax.com...
"Andrew" in <C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is
"irreducible in complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's
Black Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really has
long intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is IC if
it is such that the removal of any part of the system would cause
the system to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and others)
this is intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to determine what is
the function, parts, or system in question. Depending on how *we*
analyze something it can have two parts and be IC or 10 and not be
IC.* There are other problems. For example, the current IC nature
does not speak to the evolutionary past of the system since parts
and function and system and environment all *change* over time and
evolution is about the *change* of system, not the stepwise
addition of new parts to produce the same result.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts does a
knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the
blade as a handle.
Your example fails the criteria of the above definition.
Try again using something like a mousetrap, which is
far less complex than any living system, or any living
cell.
Actually, it's feasible to demonstrate the stepwise evolution of the
mousetrap beginning with the simplest "trap" of throwing rocks at the
mouse.
So you believe that this can be "feasibly demonstrated"? : - D
Yes, actually.
ID is not about doing or teaching science. It is about the politics
of theocracy and about piling on the sophistry until your opponents
tire of the argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.
Give it up. The plutocrats who control American society will NEVER
permit you to have your theocracy. But they will play you like a
fiddle against anything else that threatens their hegemony.
Theocracies are bad for profits (and for prophets).
You may be right about theocracies being bad, but that's no
reason to embrace the 'goo to you' evolutionary falsehood.
How do you know it's a falsehood? Because some jerk-off with no
knowledge and a nice suit told you so from a pulpit?
And why the "goo to you" appelation which is clearly DESIGNED to be a
mockery of the actual science?
I don't think it a mockery; because it does visually depict the contention
of scientists. The postulate that in the primordial soup of proteins and
amino acids (goo) that the proteins collected their self into amino acids
which then further self constructed their self into DNA and ribosome's.
then they continued self construction and the scientists say that with
enough time that primordial soup (goo) combined into single cell creatures
that over a long period of time became you so I see no mockery of science in
the "goo to you"; but I do see a mockery of God saying that the goo became
*self aware* over a long period of time.
--
From the Desk of Paul CKC
/}
@###{ ]::::::Cyber Knight for Christ::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 02:49:01 PM |
|
|
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote in
news:wO6dnQA7dfIRxw3YnZ2dnUVZ_uC3nZ2d@adelphia.com:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A47CAD45BE4doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:iNLjh.6773$X72.3968@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A378534D6BAdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:Dmjjh.6133$X72.501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message
news:3g0ro2hs9cjkhpqcf0ad1j2jd7ca6d156m@4ax.com...
"Andrew" in
<C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is
"irreducible in complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's
Black Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really
has long intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is
IC if it is such that the removal of any part of the system would
cause the system to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and
others) this is intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to
determine what is the function, parts, or system in question.
Depending on how *we* analyze something it can have two parts and
be IC or 10 and not be IC.* There are other problems. For
example, the current IC nature does not speak to the evolutionary
past of the system since parts and function and system and
environment all *change* over time and evolution is about the
*change* of system, not the stepwise addition of new parts to
produce the same result.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts does
a knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the
blade as a handle.
Your example fails the criteria of the above definition.
Try again using something like a mousetrap, which is
far less complex than any living system, or any living
cell.
Actually, it's feasible to demonstrate the stepwise evolution of
the mousetrap beginning with the simplest "trap" of throwing rocks
at the mouse.
So you believe that this can be "feasibly demonstrated"? : - D
Yes, actually.
ID is not about doing or teaching science. It is about the
politics of theocracy and about piling on the sophistry until your
opponents tire of the argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.
Give it up. The plutocrats who control American society will NEVER
permit you to have your theocracy. But they will play you like a
fiddle against anything else that threatens their hegemony.
Theocracies are bad for profits (and for prophets).
You may be right about theocracies being bad, but that's no
reason to embrace the 'goo to you' evolutionary falsehood.
How do you know it's a falsehood? Because some jerk-off with no
knowledge and a nice suit told you so from a pulpit?
And why the "goo to you" appelation which is clearly DESIGNED to be a
mockery of the actual science?
I don't think it a mockery; because it does visually depict the
contention of scientists. The postulate that in the primordial soup
of proteins and amino acids (goo) that the proteins collected their
self into amino acids which then further self constructed their self
into DNA and ribosome's. then they continued self construction and the
scientists say that with enough time that primordial soup (goo)
combined into single cell creatures that over a long period of time
became you so I see no mockery of science in the "goo to you"; but I
do see a mockery of God saying that the goo became *self aware* over a
long period of time.
Actually, no scientist claims to know how life originated. There are a
lot of hypotheses, but no good THEORY. Evolution is more about its
subsequent diversification. For example, the evidence that chimps and
humans share a (relatively) recent common ancestor is very, very strong.
The clear implication of this deduction is that the current differences
are the result of divergent evolution. And, by extension, it is
reasonable to hypothesize that all life is descended from the first
instance of it.
How do you get from evolving self-awareness to a mockery of God, though,
is beyond me. God is who He is. And God made the universe the way it
is. You can make fun of that the way you have and, I suppose I could
call THAT mocking God. But the act of trying to figure out how it all
actually works is not mockery. What is mockery is arrogating yourself to
the position of judge over science you clearly don't understand and then
taking God's name in vain by claiming His imprimatur on your false
doctrines. I'd be really worried about that if I was ANY modern
creationist apologist...
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 06:20:55 AM |
|
|
Sugien wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A47CAD45BE4doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:iNLjh.6773$X72.3968@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A378534D6BAdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:Dmjjh.6133$X72.501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message
news:3g0ro2hs9cjkhpqcf0ad1j2jd7ca6d156m@4ax.com...
"Andrew" in <C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is
"irreducible in complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's
Black Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really has
long intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is IC if
it is such that the removal of any part of the system would cause
the system to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and others)
this is intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to determine what is
the function, parts, or system in question. Depending on how *we*
analyze something it can have two parts and be IC or 10 and not be
IC.* There are other problems. For example, the current IC nature
does not speak to the evolutionary past of the system since parts
and function and system and environment all *change* over time and
evolution is about the *change* of system, not the stepwise
addition of new parts to produce the same result.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts does a
knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the
blade as a handle.
Your example fails the criteria of the above definition.
Try again using something like a mousetrap, which is
far less complex than any living system, or any living
cell.
Actually, it's feasible to demonstrate the stepwise evolution of the
mousetrap beginning with the simplest "trap" of throwing rocks at the
mouse.
So you believe that this can be "feasibly demonstrated"? : - D
Yes, actually.
ID is not about doing or teaching science. It is about the politics
of theocracy and about piling on the sophistry until your opponents
tire of the argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.
Give it up. The plutocrats who control American society will NEVER
permit you to have your theocracy. But they will play you like a
fiddle against anything else that threatens their hegemony.
Theocracies are bad for profits (and for prophets).
You may be right about theocracies being bad, but that's no
reason to embrace the 'goo to you' evolutionary falsehood.
How do you know it's a falsehood? Because some jerk-off with no
knowledge and a nice suit told you so from a pulpit?
And why the "goo to you" appelation which is clearly DESIGNED to be a
mockery of the actual science?
I don't think it a mockery; because it does visually depict the contention
of scientists. The postulate that in the primordial soup of proteins and
amino acids (goo) that the proteins collected their self into amino acids
which then further self constructed their self into DNA and ribosome's.
then they continued self construction and the scientists say that with
enough time that primordial soup (goo) combined into single cell creatures
that over a long period of time became you so I see no mockery of science in
the "goo to you"; but I do see a mockery of God
Which god?
[Rest snipped]
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 07:44:10 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message news:1167135655.333956.139460@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Sugien wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A47CAD45BE4doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:iNLjh.6773$X72.3968@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A378534D6BAdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:Dmjjh.6133$X72.501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message
news:3g0ro2hs9cjkhpqcf0ad1j2jd7ca6d156m@4ax.com...
"Andrew" in <C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is
"irreducible in complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's
Black Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really has
long intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is IC if
it is such that the removal of any part of the system would cause
the system to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and others)
this is intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to determine what is
the function, parts, or system in question. Depending on how *we*
analyze something it can have two parts and be IC or 10 and not be
IC.* There are other problems. For example, the current IC nature
does not speak to the evolutionary past of the system since parts
and function and system and environment all *change* over time and
evolution is about the *change* of system, not the stepwise
addition of new parts to produce the same result.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts does a
knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the
blade as a handle.
Your example fails the criteria of the above definition.
Try again using something like a mousetrap, which is
far less complex than any living system, or any living
cell.
Actually, it's feasible to demonstrate the stepwise evolution of the
mousetrap beginning with the simplest "trap" of throwing rocks at the
mouse.
So you believe that this can be "feasibly demonstrated"? : - D
Yes, actually.
ID is not about doing or teaching science. It is about the politics
of theocracy and about piling on the sophistry until your opponents
tire of the argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.
Give it up. The plutocrats who control American society will NEVER
permit you to have your theocracy. But they will play you like a
fiddle against anything else that threatens their hegemony.
Theocracies are bad for profits (and for prophets).
You may be right about theocracies being bad, but that's no
reason to embrace the 'goo to you' evolutionary falsehood.
How do you know it's a falsehood? Because some jerk-off with no
knowledge and a nice suit told you so from a pulpit?
And why the "goo to you" appelation which is clearly DESIGNED to be a
mockery of the actual science?
I don't think it a mockery; because it does visually depict the contention
of scientists. The postulate that in the primordial soup of proteins and
amino acids (goo) that the proteins collected their self into amino acids
which then further self constructed their self into DNA and ribosome's.
then they continued self construction and the scientists say that with
enough time that primordial soup (goo) combined into single cell creatures
that over a long period of time became you so I see no mockery of science in
the "goo to you"; but I do see a mockery of God
Which god?
Budikka
You may learn of Him now, or later on the Day
when you will be called to stand before Him to
give an account of your life of rebellion against
Him.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 09:14:50 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
snp
You may learn of Him now,
Him who?
or later on the Day
when you will be called to stand before Him to give an account of your
life of rebellion against Him.
And your objective, verifiable evidence that this will occur in reality
is...........................?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 01:06:15 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
Which god?
Budikka
You may learn of Him now, or later on the Day
when you will be called to stand before Him to
give an account of your life of rebellion against
Him.
Which god, Andrew? And what evidence do you have that there even is
one? It's not possible to be angry against something that doesn't
exist, so please retract your lie about this "anger" of mine, which is
entirely an invention of yours, and understand that there is no anger.
There is, however, a flat refusal on my part to let people like you
bear false witness about evolution, and this is what you are doing, as
I have repeatedly demonstrated. Please try to grow up and understand
the difference, because you are seriously embarrassing yourself in this
world-wide public forum with your ignorance and falsehoods.
Once again, let me ask you: do you have anything to support your
position - any rationale or science at all, or are you hereby making a
de facto admission in this public forum that your entire position is
based falsehood?
Now since your own position is that falshoods must proceed from Satan
himself, I have to ask you before the world, are you working for Satan
spreading these lies? Are, you, Andrew? It's really time to face the
truth.
So here it is: Please present your scientific or rational support for
what you have, by your repeated inability to support these claims of
yours, forced me to call lies you're spreading about evolution.
Your failure to do this in response to this message will be a de facto
admission by you, in this world-wide public forum, that you, in fact,
are a liar, a hypocrite, and a coward.
It's time to think about what's important to you, Andrew, about what
you stand for. Do you stand for the way, the TRUTH, and the light, or
are you an agent of Satan?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 07:58:04 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1167135655.333956.139460@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Sugien wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A47CAD45BE4doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:iNLjh.6773$X72.3968@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A378534D6BAdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:Dmjjh.6133$X72.501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message
news:3g0ro2hs9cjkhpqcf0ad1j2jd7ca6d156m@4ax.com...
"Andrew" in <C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is
"irreducible in complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's
Black Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really
has
long intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is
IC if
it is such that the removal of any part of the system would cause
the system to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and
others)
this is intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to determine
what is
the function, parts, or system in question. Depending on how *we*
analyze something it can have two parts and be IC or 10 and not be
IC.* There are other problems. For example, the current IC nature
does not speak to the evolutionary past of the system since parts
and function and system and environment all *change* over time and
evolution is about the *change* of system, not the stepwise
addition of new parts to produce the same result.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts
does a
knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the
blade as a handle.
Your example fails the criteria of the above definition.
Try again using something like a mousetrap, which is
far less complex than any living system, or any living
cell.
Actually, it's feasible to demonstrate the stepwise evolution of the
mousetrap beginning with the simplest "trap" of throwing rocks at
the
mouse.
So you believe that this can be "feasibly demonstrated"? : - D
Yes, actually.
ID is not about doing or teaching science. It is about the politics
of theocracy and about piling on the sophistry until your opponents
tire of the argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.
Give it up. The plutocrats who control American society will NEVER
permit you to have your theocracy. But they will play you like a
fiddle against anything else that threatens their hegemony.
Theocracies are bad for profits (and for prophets).
You may be right about theocracies being bad, but that's no
reason to embrace the 'goo to you' evolutionary falsehood.
How do you know it's a falsehood? Because some jerk-off with no
knowledge and a nice suit told you so from a pulpit?
And why the "goo to you" appelation which is clearly DESIGNED to be a
mockery of the actual science?
I don't think it a mockery; because it does visually depict the
contention
of scientists. The postulate that in the primordial soup of proteins
and
amino acids (goo) that the proteins collected their self into amino
acids
which then further self constructed their self into DNA and ribosome's.
then they continued self construction and the scientists say that with
enough time that primordial soup (goo) combined into single cell
creatures
that over a long period of time became you so I see no mockery of
science in
the "goo to you"; but I do see a mockery of God
Which god?
Budikka
You may learn of Him now, or later on the Day
when you will be called to stand before Him to give an account of your
life of rebellion against Him.
Andrew
Heh! Andrew seems to think that the demons buzzing and screeching in his otherwise empty head have a range which exceeds
his skull. :)
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 10:14:36 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message news:1167135655.333956.139460@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Sugien wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A47CAD45BE4doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:iNLjh.6773$X72.3968@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A378534D6BAdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:Dmjjh.6133$X72.501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message
news:3g0ro2hs9cjkhpqcf0ad1j2jd7ca6d156m@4ax.com...
"Andrew" in <C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is
"irreducible in complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's
Black Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really has
long intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is IC if
it is such that the removal of any part of the system would cause
the system to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and others)
this is intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to determine what is
the function, parts, or system in question. Depending on how *we*
analyze something it can have two parts and be IC or 10 and not be
IC.* There are other problems. For example, the current IC nature
does not speak to the evolutionary past of the system since parts
and function and system and environment all *change* over time and
evolution is about the *change* of system, not the stepwise
addition of new parts to produce the same result.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts does a
knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the
blade as a handle.
Your example fails the criteria of the above definition.
Try again using something like a mousetrap, which is
far less complex than any living system, or any living
cell.
Actually, it's feasible to demonstrate the stepwise evolution of the
mousetrap beginning with the simplest "trap" of throwing rocks at the
mouse.
So you believe that this can be "feasibly demonstrated"? : - D
Yes, actually.
ID is not about doing or teaching science. It is about the politics
of theocracy and about piling on the sophistry until your opponents
tire of the argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.
Give it up. The plutocrats who control American society will NEVER
permit you to have your theocracy. But they will play you like a
fiddle against anything else that threatens their hegemony.
Theocracies are bad for profits (and for prophets).
You may be right about theocracies being bad, but that's no
reason to embrace the 'goo to you' evolutionary falsehood.
How do you know it's a falsehood? Because some jerk-off with no
knowledge and a nice suit told you so from a pulpit?
And why the "goo to you" appelation which is clearly DESIGNED to be a
mockery of the actual science?
I don't think it a mockery; because it does visually depict the contention
of scientists. The postulate that in the primordial soup of proteins and
amino acids (goo) that the proteins collected their self into amino acids
which then further self constructed their self into DNA and ribosome's.
then they continued self construction and the scientists say that with
enough time that primordial soup (goo) combined into single cell creatures
that over a long period of time became you so I see no mockery of science in
the "goo to you"; but I do see a mockery of God
Which god?
Budikka
You may learn of Him now, or later on the Day
when you will be called to stand before Him to
give an account of your life of rebellion against
Him.
And he'll undoubtedly punish anyone arrogant enough to use their brain.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
26 Dec 2006 11:45:39 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:44:10 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message news:1167135655.333956.139460@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Sugien wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A47CAD45BE4doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:iNLjh.6773$X72.3968@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns98A378534D6BAdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:Dmjjh.6133$X72.501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message
news:3g0ro2hs9cjkhpqcf0ad1j2jd7ca6d156m@4ax.com...
"Andrew" in <C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is
"irreducible in complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's
Black Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really has
long intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is IC if
it is such that the removal of any part of the system would cause
the system to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and others)
this is intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to determine what is
the function, parts, or system in question. Depending on how *we*
analyze something it can have two parts and be IC or 10 and not be
IC.* There are other problems. For example, the current IC nature
does not speak to the evolutionary past of the system since parts
and function and system and environment all *change* over time and
evolution is about the *change* of system, not the stepwise
addition of new parts to produce the same result.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts does a
knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the
blade as a handle.
Your example fails the criteria of the above definition.
Try again using something like a mousetrap, which is
far less complex than any living system, or any living
cell.
Actually, it's feasible to demonstrate the stepwise evolution of the
mousetrap beginning with the simplest "trap" of throwing rocks at the
mouse.
So you believe that this can be "feasibly demonstrated"? : - D
Yes, actually.
ID is not about doing or teaching science. It is about the politics
of theocracy and about piling on the sophistry until your opponents
tire of the argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.
Give it up. The plutocrats who control American society will NEVER
permit you to have your theocracy. But they will play you like a
fiddle against anything else that threatens their hegemony.
Theocracies are bad for profits (and for prophets).
You may be right about theocracies being bad, but that's no
reason to embrace the 'goo to you' evolutionary falsehood.
How do you know it's a falsehood? Because some jerk-off with no
knowledge and a nice suit told you so from a pulpit?
And why the "goo to you" appelation which is clearly DESIGNED to be a
mockery of the actual science?
I don't think it a mockery; because it does visually depict the contention
of scientists. The postulate that in the primordial soup of proteins and
amino acids (goo) that the proteins collected their self into amino acids
which then further self constructed their self into DNA and ribosome's.
then they continued self construction and the scientists say that with
enough time that primordial soup (goo) combined into single cell creatures
that over a long period of time became you so I see no mockery of science in
the "goo to you"; but I do see a mockery of God
Which god?
Budikka
You may learn of Him now, or later on the Day
when you will be called to stand before Him to
give an account of your life of rebellion against
Him.
Post-mortem threats mean that you have lost.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 07:46:08 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 23:56:19 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message news:3g0ro2hs9cjkhpqcf0ad1j2jd7ca6d156m@4ax.com...
"Andrew" in <C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible in
complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's Black
Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really has long
intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is IC if it is
such that the removal of any part of the system would cause the system
to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and others) this is
intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to determine what is the
function, parts, or system in question. Depending on how *we* analyze
something it can have two parts and be IC or 10 and not be IC.* There
are other problems. For example, the current IC nature does not speak
to the evolutionary past of the system since parts and function and
system and environment all *change* over time and evolution is about
the *change* of system, not the stepwise addition of new parts to
produce the same result.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts does a
knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the blade
as a handle.
Your example fails the criteria of the above definition.
Try again using something like a mousetrap,
It's not IC.
B: 3, blade, tang, and handle. Again, without the tang the blade does
not hold to the handle.
C: 6, blade, tang, point, back, body, edge, and handle.
Now go and read a knife making book and find out that a knife can have
dozens of parts. The number all depends on how we analyze the system.
If the category, IC or not-IC, depends on how *we* look at it then the
category can't tell us about the evolutionary history.
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
Any one you want. Human beings, for example, are a "system" and not
IC. Blood clotting, for a biochemical example, is not IC.
Human beings being the "system" (above) ~are~ dependent on
blood clotting!
Therefore your own example is evidence showing that biological
systems -are- irreducibly complex.
Non sequitur.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Basis of Evolution |
23 Dec 2006 07:55:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 23:56:19 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> in
<Dmjjh.6133$X72.501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" wrote in message news:3g0ro2hs9cjkhpqcf0ad1j2jd7ca6d156m@4ax.com...
"Andrew" in <C2ejh.2951$w91.1752@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" wrote:
Nobody has demonstrated that any biological system is "irreducible in
complexity."
Please..
1.Define *irreducible complexity*
According to Behe (though he gives various answers) in _Darwin's Black
Box" (where he first publicized the idea though it really has long
intellectual roots he does not acknowledge) an system is IC if it is
such that the removal of any part of the system would cause the system
to fail to function. Unfortunately for Behe (and others) this is
intellectual nonsense. He gives no way to determine what is the
function, parts, or system in question. Depending on how *we* analyze
something it can have two parts and be IC or 10 and not be IC.* There
are other problems. For example, the current IC nature does not speak
to the evolutionary past of the system since parts and function and
system and environment all *change* over time and evolution is about
the *change* of system, not the stepwise addition of new parts to
produce the same result.
I notice that you did not respond to any of that.
*Let us take a simple non-biological example. How many parts does a
knife have? Here are some possibilities:
A: 2, the blade and the handle. Possibly IC, but you can use the blade
as a handle.
Your example fails the criteria of the above definition.
How so? It has two parts and without either one and it fails to
function. I don't see the failure so you have to explain your claim.
Try again using something like a mousetrap, which is
far less complex than any living system, or any living
cell.
Any of the parts of the mousetrap can have a different function and
when combined they produce another function. It may well be IC, but
that does not refute an evolutionary history.
B: 3, blade, tang, and handle. Again, without the tang the blade does
not hold to the handle.
C: 6, blade, tang, point, back, body, edge, and handle.
Now go and read a knife making book and find out that a knife can have
dozens of parts. The number all depends on how we analyze the system.
If the category, IC or not-IC, depends on how *we* look at it then the
category can't tell us about the evolutionary history.
2. Give an example of -any- biological system
that does not have *irreducible complexity*
Any one you want. Human beings, for example, are a "system" and not
IC. Blood clotting, for a biochemical example, is not IC.
Human beings being the "system" (above) ~are~ dependent on
blood clotting!
Yes, but having a critical part does not make the whole thing IC.
Re-read Behe's definition: *each* part has to be critical, removal of
any part and it has to fail. Oh, and there are people who survive with
blood that does not clot.
Therefore your own example is evidence showing that biological
systems -are- irreducibly complex.
No, they are not. Re-read Behe's definition. Oh, and there are many
organisms that don't have blood at all. So neither clotting nor blood
are necessary for organisms.
Thank you.
You are welcome. Now go and read again and provide some arguments
other than bare assertion.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
