The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

oldrnwisr · 19-02-2013 11:58am

mickrock wrote: »

The "hardcore" atheists who tend to post on this thread seem deeply wedded to the unintelligent material processes of abiogenesis/Darwinism to explain life.

Surely those of you who fall into this category must feel a strong sense of cognitive dissonance when considering the nanotechnology and intricate molecular machinery at the cellular level and how unintelligent processes could have brought them about.

Michael Behe's idea of Irreducible Complexity (which Darwin himself originally put forward) must be particularly troubling and disconcerting for you. Of course, it will blithely be stated that it has been discredited and refuted. Nothing could be further from the truth and, if anything, the basis for Irreducible Complexity has grown stronger over time.

Here is a summary of why IC has not been refuted:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3408

Oh dear, there does appear to be a growing stench of desperation emanating from your posts mickrock.

Firstly, some points to get out of the way before we get to Behe and IC.

I'm not sure what I mean by hardcore atheists but, in case nobody ever told you, atheism has nothing to do with evolution. This false dilemma stems only from certain Christian fundamentalists who believe that it must either be god without evolution or evolution without God. Religion of any description is not incompatible with evolution. Remember that Behe had his ass handed to him in Dover v. Kitzmiller (more on that in a minute) by Ken Miller, a devout Roman Catholic. Robert Bokker who is one of the foremost palaeontologists in the world is a pentecostal minister and let's not forget about Theodosius Dobzhansky either.

Secondly, I don't know where you get this idea of Darwin introducing the idea of irreducible complexity but if you're thinking about quoting this:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

then don't. You're wrong. Dead wrong. But you'd know this if you had read The Origin of Species.

Now as for Behe, he has been thoroughly discredited and refuted. He was refuted from the get-go. Ken Miller in Dover v. Kitzmiller completely and with reference to peer-reviewed studies showed why Behe was talking through his arse. Indeed Judge Jones comments in his decision:

""Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."

Behe makes quite an impact on Judge Jones, although not in a good way:

"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."
"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."
"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."
"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."
"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."
"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."
"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."
"With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."

Dover v. Kitzmiller Judgement

Now, furthermore as Robin and I have both pointed out on different occasions, Behe and his examples have been thoroughly refuted.

Bacterial Flagellum

Clotting cascade

Immune system

Finally, here's AronRa explaining Behe's asshattedness and the dishonesty of creationism in general:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpeHrkbx9LU

Now, this is really beginning to get tiresome but in the interests of good science I'm giving you this opportunity. I'm not going to pick through the argumentum ad verbosium that you have presented in your link. Instead, pick any system you like that you think is irreducibly complex and I will show you that it isn't and why it isn't. How's that?

Zombrex · 19-02-2013 12:23pm

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree with you that biological change over time is not necessarily evolutionary, it is only evolutionary if these are heritable changes that are passed on from generation to generation.

That is not what makes it evolution (though it is a component to explaining the change using Darwinian evolution).

I've made the point a number of times now, and until you address it we are just repeating ourselves.

Getting back to the distinction between the scientific fact of evolution and the scientific mechanism of evolution, think about it in terms of gravity. Gravity has been observed enough to regard it as a scientific fact. Apples do not fall up, planets orbit the sun, etc. However, we have no agreed theory as yet for the mechanism of gravity. The fact that we do not have a theory for the mechanism does not prevent gravity being a scientifically observed fact.

Nor does it stop change between generations of life forms being observed. Observing change, observing changes that are sustained over generations, is not observing evolution. Evolution is a statement about the type of change, a statement that cannot be made until you have a justification to make that statement.

Imagine you don't know what the post office is. Every day a letter appears at your door, but you don't know why. The appearance of these letters is an observed fact. While you would probably be curious as to what is happening, you could not say you are observing the mechanics of the post office because you don't know what that is yet.

You could start to form a theory, based on the evidence, that some sort of structure organisation is delivering mail to you, as the mail all comes around the same time, it is all stamped with the same symbol etc. You eventually get to the theory that the Postal service is delivering mail to you.

That is so obvious after the fact, so obvious once you know about the postal service, that it would be easy to think that all along it was obvious that you were observing mail delivery, but if you think back to the first instance you did not have enough information to know that. All you knew was that a letter appeared each day. If for example these letters where not delivered by a central service, but instead by individuals, you would not be observing a postal service.

Evolution is so obvious after the fact. But imagine if life just randomly changed at each generation and nothing happened after that. Each child was just randomly different from his parent, and that's it. Would life be evolving? No it would be just randomly changing. It is evolution, as a mechanic, that provides structure to that change, through selection of these changes.

Evolution is not the random change of life, but the selection of these changes based on a selection criteria. That is what provides the order and structure to the change that allows us to say life is evolving, as opposed to merely changing.

And you cannot say that that is happening divorced of Darwinian evolution as the explanation how.

Zombrex · 19-02-2013 12:28pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Hi Zombrex,

I think i might be missing your point here. I don't quite get your distinction between mere change and evolution.
My understanding was that change from generation to generation, was just that - change. No driving force to speak of, some changes were helpfull, some neutral and some a hindrance. The changes that just happened to provide a survival or reproductive advantage were, over the course of time more likely to continue on down the generations for fairly obvious reasons, these changes gradually became more and more common due to interbreeding and eventually became a trait of the species, maybe even a defining trait - ie a new distinct species.
Evolution tends to favour changes that are helpfull, simply because those changes make it more likely that genes will be passed down the line, however species also become extinct all the time merely because evolution has led them down a cul de sac. Ce la vie.

Put a rock in a fast moving river. Come back in a week and look at the rock. It has changed. Leave it another week. It has changed again. Etc

The rock is changing due to a natural process, erosion. Is the rock evolving? How would you tell it isn't evolving?

These are not trick questions, the answers are pretty simple, but by answering it should be obvious why all change is not evolution, and what you have to be able to say in order to say a form of change is.

Zombrex · 19-02-2013 12:38pm

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Oh dear, there does appear to be a growing stench of desperation emanating from your posts mickrock.

Firstly, some points to get out of the way before we get to Behe and IC.

I'm not sure what I mean by hardcore atheists but, in case nobody ever told you, atheism has nothing to do with evolution. This false dilemma stems only from certain Christian fundamentalists who believe that it must either be god without evolution or evolution without God. Religion of any description is not incompatible with evolution. Remember that Behe had his ass handed to him in Dover v. Kitzmiller (more on that in a minute) by Ken Miller, a devout Roman Catholic. Robert Bokker who is one of the foremost palaeontologists in the world is a pentecostal minister and let's not forget about Theodosius Dobzhansky either.

Secondly, I don't know where you get this idea of Darwin introducing the idea of irreducible complexity but if you're thinking about quoting this:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

then don't. You're wrong. Dead wrong. But you'd know this if you had read The Origin of Species.

Now as for Behe, he has been thoroughly discredited and refuted. He was refuted from the get-go. Ken Miller in Dover v. Kitzmiller completely and with reference to peer-reviewed studies showed why Behe was talking through his arse. Indeed Judge Jones comments in his decision:

""Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."

Behe makes quite an impact on Judge Jones, although not in a good way:

"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."

"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."

"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."

"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."

"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."

"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

"With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."

Dover v. Kitzmiller Judgement

Now, furthermore as Robin and I have both pointed out on different occasions, Behe and his examples have been thoroughly refuted.

Bacterial Flagellum

Clotting cascade

Immune system

Finally, here's AronRa explaining Behe's asshattedness and the dishonesty of creationism in general:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpeHrkbx9LU

Now, this is really beginning to get tiresome but in the interests of good science I'm giving you this opportunity. I'm not going to pick through the argumentum ad verbosium that you have presented in your link. Instead, pick any system you like that you think is irreducibly complex and I will show you that it isn't and why it isn't. How's that?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Mickrock is going to ignore everything you have written here, while he simultaneously complains that we are close minded and ignoring the evidence :rolleyes:

mickrock · 19-02-2013 2:33pm

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm not sure what I mean by hardcore atheists but, in case nobody ever told you, atheism has nothing to do with evolution.

Maybe not directly, but you do certainly seem to get your knickers in a twist over it.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, I don't know where you get this idea of Darwin introducing the idea of irreducible complexity but if you're thinking about quoting this:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

then don't. You're wrong. Dead wrong. But you'd know this if you had read The Origin of Species.

No, it wasn't the above. Darwin said:

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

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Behe makes quite an impact on Judge Jones, although not in a good way

So now a federal court judge is an authority on what is or isn't scientific.

Since when have scientific matters ever been decided in a court of law? Bringing up that trial is handy way of deflecting attention from the thorny issue of Irreducible Complexity.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now, furthermore as Robin and I have both pointed out on different occasions, Behe and his examples have been thoroughly refuted.

No, Behe and his examples haven't been refuted.

I already gave a link where Behe and others deal comprehensively with criticisms of Irreducible Complexity:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3408

Delirium · 19-02-2013 2:56pm

mickrock wrote: »

So now a federal court judge is an authority on what is or isn't scientific.

Since when have scientific matters ever been decided in a court of law? Bringing up that trial is handy way of deflecting attention from the thorny issue of Irreducible Complexity.

No, Behe and his examples haven't been refuted.

I already gave a link where Behe and others deal comprehensively with criticisms of Irreducible Complexity:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3408

Really?

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

Wiki

The reason the court-case was mentioned I'd imagine is for the bolded reason. It's a public statement that irreducible complexity has been refuted and rejected by the scientific community. I think that's where oldrnwisr was going with that point.

So you got anything that hasn't been refuted to support your creationist ideas?

sbsquarepants · 19-02-2013 3:16pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Put a rock in a fast moving river. Come back in a week and look at the rock. It has changed. Leave it another week. It has changed again. Etc

The rock is changing due to a natural process, erosion. Is the rock evolving? How would you tell it isn't evolving?

These are not trick questions, the answers are pretty simple, but by answering it should be obvious why all change is not evolution, and what you have to be able to say in order to say a form of change is.

The rock analogy doesn't work, as a rock doesn't pass it's genes on to other rocks! Obviously the rock is not evolving, it's weathering. But in a living organism what change could occur that you would consider as outside evolution?
What is the difference between the change of living organisms from generation to generation and evolution - random changes occur, in theory they could all be passed on, but in reality the ones that confer an advantage tend to survive long enough to be passed on and the ones that don't tend to die out. Only tend to over large time spans, "bad" genes can and do persist sometimes.
Evolution is just the name given to the overall effect of these changes - there is no driving force, it doesn't have a goal or a preferred outcome. It's just change, over time. I don't see the distinction you're making.

doctoremma · 19-02-2013 3:30pm

mickrock wrote: »

No, it wasn't the above. Darwin said:

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

Fortunately, we don't have any examples of irreducibly complex organs/systems.

doctoremma · 19-02-2013 3:42pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The rock analogy doesn't work, as a rock doesn't pass it's genes on to other rocks! Obviously the rock is not evolving, it's weathering. But in a living organism what change could occur that you would consider as outside evolution?

If you replace the "rocks in a river" with "fossils in sedimentary layers", I think the point becomes clearer maybe? (I have struggled with what Zombrex has been saying for the last couple of days so possibly not there yet!).

So you see fossilised Creature X in the lower layer and fossilised Creature Y in the higher layer. They look pretty similar - maybe they only differ on the length of a leg bone. Now, when you look at these two creatures, you can think:
1. one group of the organisms has "transformed" into the second group (and you see two examples from each group separated by time) - this is equivalent to the rock moving down the river to a new position.
2. one group of organisms was replaced by a second unrelated but decidedly similar group of organisms - this is the equivalent of someone removing the first rock from its initial position and chucking a similar second rock in downstream.

"Evolutionary" change cannot be said to occur unless you can at least define the change as 1. above. Furthermore, "evolutionary" change cannot be said to happen without a mechanism to describe it i.e. genetics/inheritance. Which is what I think leads Zombrex to say:

Until the process of evolution was identified all biologists could do was observe the scientific fact of change (that life slowly changed over the generations), and suppose that this change was some how evolutionary, even if they didn't understand how.

However, I could be completely wrong/still missing the point and am happy to have my knuckles thoroughly rapped for jumping in.

oldrnwisr · 19-02-2013 3:50pm

mickrock wrote: »

Maybe not directly, but you do certainly seem to get your knickers in a twist over it.

No, your low-level trollery is beginning to irritate me but I'm certainly not put out by the link between atheism and evolution other than the fact that it is wrong and this is only about the millionth time I've had to point this out.

mickrock wrote: »

No, it wasn't the above. Darwin said:

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

You missed a bit.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."

Since Darwin wrote those words, nobody else has been able to find a case either.

mickrock wrote: »

So now a federal court judge is an authority on what is or isn't scientific.

Since when have scientific matters ever been decided in a court of law? Bringing up that trial is handy way of deflecting attention from the thorny issue of Irreducible Complexity.

I'm not making an argument to authority. I'm pointing out that on one of the very few occasions where the ID vs. evolution argument has been the subject of arbitration with input from a neutral party who is otherwise well versed in analysing disparate forms of evidence, ID was thoroughly rejected as legitimate.

The courts don't arbitrate scientific matters. Scientists do and they have overwhelmingly rejected ID as pseudoscience created to shoehorn religion into science classrooms. Even Behe's own colleagues point this out:

Lehigh University - Department of Biological Sciences - Department position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

"While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific. "

Oh, and it's not Jones' opinion that counts against ID, it is Behe's own testimony, particularly this:

"there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"

Behe did more to damage the credibility of ID than any of the plaintiff's witnesses or the masses of scientific evidence which they presented could have done.

mickrock wrote: »

No, Behe and his examples haven't been refuted.

I already gave a link where Behe and others deal comprehensively with criticisms of Irreducible Complexity:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3408

Yes, they have.

In my last post I linked to refutations of all three examples used by Behe in his Dover testimony. Additionally I have previously posted a refutation of yet another ID favourite, the bombardier beetle.

You might have missed the end of my last post but it's worth restating. There's no way in hell I'm going to address that many different articles just because you think they count for something. Pick one biological system which you assert cannot have been produced by Darwinian means and I will explain why you are wrong. Simples.

Oh, and one final point. Since you seem to be lifting arguments straight from creatard central at this point, I thought it would be nice just to explain to you in plain language where Behe went wrong. (For the sake of this argument let's assume that Behe was incompetent rather than dishonest.)

Let's start with what Behe actually argues:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."
Darwin's Black Box, p.39

The first mistake Behe makes is by starting with a strawman of evolution. He argues that since a flagellum, for example, has numerous interconnected parts that removing any one will cause the system to stop functioning. In so doing he makes the following errors.

1. Evolution doesn't necessarily proceed through the gradual addition of individual components but rather by the gradual improvement of the entire system.

2. There is an implicit assumption in Behe's argument (later made explicit by Behe himself) that the function of the system must remain the same from precursor to present condition. There is no basis for this assumption.

Further to these problems, any of the examples Behe chose have been shown not to be irreducibly complex. In the case of the bacterial flagellum for example he was doubly wrong. Not only do we have a mechanism for the stepwise evolution of the flagellum from a precursor but we can remove parts from the existing system and retain a functional system.

The Flagellum Unspun

Sarky · 19-02-2013 4:13pm

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Mickrock is going to ignore everything you have written here, while he simultaneously complains that we are close minded and ignoring the evidence :rolleyes:

Oh look, that's exactly what happened. Poor chap

sephir0th · 19-02-2013 4:43pm

mickrock wrote: »

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

What a wonderful statement. I never knew he said that. In the true nature of science, Darwin himself proposes a means by which his own ideas could be discredited.

robindch · 19-02-2013 4:53pm

mickrock wrote: »

No, Behe and his examples haven't been refuted.

They haven't so much been refuted, as trashed, rubbished and laughed out of the scientific arena long before they were laughed out of court.

Look mickrock, I've no idea why you continue posting the same tired crap all the time. Don't you get bored of it?

Anyhow, with my mod hat on, you can either engage in an adult conversation or you will be banned.

mickrock · 19-02-2013 5:54pm

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Further to these problems, any of the examples Behe chose have been shown not to be irreducibly complex. In the case of the bacterial flagellum for example he was doubly wrong. Not only do we have a mechanism for the stepwise evolution of the flagellum from a precursor but we can remove parts from the existing system and retain a functional system.

The Flagellum Unspun

William Dembski has a reponse to "The Flagellum Unspun" entitled "Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller":

http://www.discovery.org/a/1364

"The problem is not that we in the intelligent design community, whom Miller incorrectly calls "anti-evolutionists," just can't imagine how those systems arose. The problem is that Ken Miller and the entire biological community haven't figured out how those systems arose. It's not a question of personal incredulity but of global disciplinary failure (the discipline here being biology) and gross theoretical inadequacy (the theory here being Darwin's). Darwin's theory, without which nothing in biology is supposed to make sense, in fact offers no insight into how the flagellum arose. If the biological community had even an inkling of how such systems arose by naturalistic mechanisms, Miller would not -- a full six years after the publication of Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe -- be lamely gesturing at the type three secretory system as a possible evolutionary precursor to the flagellum. It would suffice simply to provide a detailed explanation of how a system like the bacterial flagellum arose by Darwinian means. Miller's paper, despite its intimidating title ("The Flagellum Unspun") does nothing to answer that question."

nagirrac · 19-02-2013 6:13pm

doctoremma wrote: »

So you see fossilised Creature X in the lower layer and fossilised Creature Y in the higher layer. They look pretty similar - maybe they only differ on the length of a leg bone. Now, when you look at these two creatures, you can think:
1. one group of the organisms has "transformed" into the second group (and you see two examples from each group separated by time) - this is equivalent to the rock moving down the river to a new position.
2. one group of organisms was replaced by a second unrelated but decidedly similar group of organisms - this is the equivalent of someone removing the first rock from its initial position and chucking a similar second rock in downstream.

"Evolutionary" change cannot be said to occur unless you can at least define the change as 1. above. Furthermore, "evolutionary" change cannot be said to happen without a mechanism to describe it i.e. genetics/inheritance.

Welcome to the conversation emma. I think your analogy is very useful because it focuses on the mechanism. Yes, evolution needs a mechanism, but the mechanism does not have to be natural selection or at least natural selection alone.

In your two examples, both are possible depending on whether we are talking about natural selection or random genetic drift.

Evolution by natural selection is a non-random process. It is a "guided" process, adaptation to the current environment. As the environment changes, traits due to random mutation are naturally selected. Evolution by random genetic drift is completely random i.e. it is unguided and determined only by statistical chance. It is neutral selection as opposed to natural selection. There is nothing Darwinian about random genetic drift, in fact biologists who believe it is as significant as natural selection point out they are not Darwinists.

Random genetic drift is important becaus it explains the different speeds that evolution proceeds at. In small populations your example 2 above absolutely happens, and may be the primary driver in the historical development of new species and the extinction of existing species. While natural selection is a very slow process, random genetic drift can lead to very rapid evolution with either a positive or negative outcome for the species.

Zombrex · 19-02-2013 6:17pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The rock analogy doesn't work, as a rock doesn't pass it's genes on to other rocks! Obviously the rock is not evolving, it's weathering

That is precisely the point, the rock is changing but the change is not evolutionary.

Which is why it is incorrect to say evolution is just change and change is evolution. Evolution is a particular type of change.

But in a living organism what change could occur that you would consider as outside evolution?

Imagine that if instead of Darwinian evolution, which is how we know life evolves, instead life changed as the rock in the river does, just stuff happening here and there with no selection process.

What is the difference between the change of living organisms from generation to generation and evolution - random changes occur, in theory they could all be passed on, but in reality the ones that confer an advantage tend to survive long enough to be passed on and the ones that don't tend to die out. Only tend to over large time spans, "bad" genes can and do persist sometimes.

Would life evolve without this selection process? Would life evolve if it was like the rock in the stream, and stuff just happened to it to change it but there were no other mechanics taking place (ie no natural selection process)?

oldrnwisr · 19-02-2013 6:19pm

mickrock wrote: »

William Dembski has a reponse to "The Flagellum Unspun" entitled "Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller":

http://www.discovery.org/a/1364

"The problem is not that we in the intelligent design community, whom Miller incorrectly calls "anti-evolutionists," just can't imagine how those systems arose. The problem is that Ken Miller and the entire biological community haven't figured out how those systems arose. It's not a question of personal incredulity but of global disciplinary failure (the discipline here being biology) and gross theoretical inadequacy (the theory here being Darwin's). Darwin's theory, without which nothing in biology is supposed to make sense, in fact offers no insight into how the flagellum arose. If the biological community had even an inkling of how such systems arose by naturalistic mechanisms, Miller would not -- a full six years after the publication of Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe -- be lamely gesturing at the type three secretory system as a possible evolutionary precursor to the flagellum. It would suffice simply to provide a detailed explanation of how a system like the bacterial flagellum arose by Darwinian means. Miller's paper, despite its intimidating title ("The Flagellum Unspun") does nothing to answer that question."

Oh, no, not Dembski. I thought you'd already reached the bottom of the barrel with Behe.

OK, it's now clear that like Zombrex predicted you completely ignored what I have posted previously so I don't really see the point in any further engagement.

For those on the fence, however, mickrock is unsurprisingly still wrong.

If he had read my second last post he would have seen this link which details the following mechanism for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum:

A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.
The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).
The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).
An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.
The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.
Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.

Furthermore, the experimental evidence we have gathered support such a development (either matching this mechanism or through an analagous Darwinian process) contrary to Dembski's assertion:

I think we're done here. I'm going to step out of the way of the rapidly oncoming banhammer. If you decide to change your tune and engage in meaningful debate I will be here, but I expect not.

nagirrac · 19-02-2013 6:32pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Imagine that if instead of Darwinian evolution, which is how we know life evolves, instead life changed as the rock in the river does, just stuff happening here and there with no selection process.
Would life evolve without this selection process? Would life evolve if it was like the rock in the stream, and stuff just happened to it to change it but there were no other mechanics taking place (ie no natural selection process)?

Random genetic drift is stuff happening here and there with no natural selection. There is good reason to believe it is the primary driver of speciation, at least for the majority of the history of life on earth, as in small populations it is more likely to result in changes that are likely to survive and thrive or changes that mean extinction.

Sarky · 19-02-2013 6:33pm

Ahahahahahahahaha, referencing Dembski. Go on, go the full hog and call Kent Hovind an intellectual titan.

nagirrac · 19-02-2013 6:40pm

Zombrex wrote: »

That is not what makes it evolution (though it is a component to explaining the change using Darwinian evolution).

I've made the point a number of times now, and until you address it we are just repeating ourselves.

Zombrex, we will get nowhere unless we can at least agree on a definition of biological evolution and what evidence confirmed biological evolution as a scientific fact.

"Biological evolution is the (genetic) change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations" - from wiki, but you will find the equivalent defintion on all scientific sources, in particular University websites.

Do you agree with this definition?

What evidence do you believe established biological evolution as a scientific fact and when?

robindch · 19-02-2013 6:51pm

mickrock wrote: »

William Dembski has a reponse to "The Flagellum Unspun" entitled "Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller":

Mickrock - cutting and pasting somebody else's words is not an adult conversation.

To repeat for one final time: if you can't discuss this topic in an adult manner in your own words, you will be banned.

Zombrex · 19-02-2013 6:55pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Zombrex, we will get nowhere unless we can at least agree on a definition of biological evolution and what evidence confirmed biological evolution as a scientific fact.

"Biological evolution is the (genetic) change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations" - from wiki, but you will find the equivalent defintion on all scientific sources, in particular University websites.

Do you agree with this definition?

What evidence do you believe established biological evolution as a scientific fact and when?

That definition is fine in a world where Darwinian evolution is understood and accepted.

The problem is that you are supposing that we can tell evolution is happen completely separately to the mechanisms discovered in the last 150 of evolutionary research.

Then this simplified definition, which I suspect was never meant to be used in the context you use it, is insufficient.

Why? Because it is easy to imagine change within that definition that would not be evolutionary.

For example if a cat gave birth to a dog that would not be evolution. Now we know that would never happen because we know how evolution works. But it would still fit within that definition despite it clearly not being evolutionary.

So for what you are proposing, that we can tell evolution is taking place divorced from the mechanics of Darwinian evolution, such as genetics, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. no that definition is not satisfactory.

mickrock · 19-02-2013 7:04pm

robindch wrote: »

Mickrock - cutting and pasting somebody else's words is not an adult conversation.

To repeat for one final time: if you can't discuss this topic in an adult manner in your own words, you will be banned.

Oldrnwisr does a lot of cutting and pasting.

Is (s)he going to be banned as well?

I think the cognitve dissonance must be getting to you.

nagirrac · 19-02-2013 7:15pm

Zombrex wrote: »

That definition is fine in a world where Darwinian evolution is understood and accepted.
The problem is that you are supposing that we can tell evolution is happen completely separately to the mechanisms discovered in the last 150 of evolutionary research.
So for what you are proposing, that we can tell evolution is taking place divorced from the mechanics of Darwinian evolution, such as genetics, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. no that definition is not satisfactory.

The definition was fine (without the genetics bit) 150 years ago and it is still fine today. You can tell evolution is happening without any understanding of the underlying mechanisms. A cat giving birth to a dog does not fit into the definition because of the term "inherited characteristics". This is another silly analogy like your rock example. Darwin explained evolution as "descent with modifications from a common ancestor" before ever getting to a proposed mechanism.

Random genetic drift is not a Darwinian mechanism, it is completely random, the opposite of Darwinian.

What you are trying to do is apply the term "Darwinian" to all mechanisms of evolution. You are on shaky ground. Let's imagine a new mechanism is discovered tomorrow that is confirmed as the primary driver of evolution, replacing both natural selection and random genetic drift. Would you still call that Darwinian evolution? Not in my book. If Zombrex discovered it it should be known as Zombrex evolution.

Zombrex · 19-02-2013 7:55pm

nagirrac wrote: »

The definition was fine (without the genetics bit) 150 years ago and it is still fine today. You can tell evolution is happening without any understanding of the underlying mechanisms. A cat giving birth to a dog does not fit into the definition because of the term "inherited characteristics".

Why would that not be inherited characteristics?

nagirrac wrote: »

This is another silly analogy like your rock example. Darwin explained evolution as "descent with modifications from a common ancestor" before ever getting to a proposed mechanism.

Which again is another example of a definition is fine if you use it in a Darwinian context. Of course a cat giving birth to a dog would again fit this definition (descent with modifications, in this case a significant modification), but given what we know about Darwinian evolution, we know life doesn't work like this.

These definitions only become an issue when you try to divorce biological evolution from the Darwinian mechanisms we know cause it.

But the you would have to be nuts to want to do that.

nagirrac wrote: »

Random genetic drift is not a Darwinian mechanism, it is completely random, the opposite of Darwinian.

Random genetic drift is a Neo-Darwinian mechanism, it is one of the two main selection processes in Neo-Darwinian evolution (natural selection and random selection).

No biologists today are Darwinian in the strictest since since Darwin didn't know anything about genetics, so purely by knowing about genetics someone is no longer a Darwinist in the strictest sense. This is why Neo-Darwinian theory is commonly used instead of Darwinian theory, though in these modern times they mean pretty much the same thing. Random genetic drift fits perfectly within Darwinian evolutionary theory, it is expected that simply by luck some organisms will mate and pass on genes that provide no adaptation advantage, in fact it would be rather impossible to imagine an environment pressure that didn't allow this.

You keep searching around for this magical gap where you nuts ideas about "intelligent creativity" or some other clap trap, can live, but you are bang out of luck, and it is getting all so very tiresome

Sarky · 19-02-2013 7:56pm

mickrock wrote: »

Oldrnwisr does a lot of cutting and pasting.

Is (s)he going to be banned as well?

I think the cognitve dissonance must be getting to you.

He tends to link references together with his own words. He also reads other peoples' posts and takes their responses into account. You could learn a lot from him, but you're not interested in being educated, are you?

nagirrac · 19-02-2013 7:59pm

The attached article by Larry Moran from the talkorigins.org website that oldrnwiser linked to above is an excellent summary of biological evolution as fact and theory. The takeaway message is that biologists freely admit that while they are certain about the fact of evolution, they are less certain about the mechanisms involved.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Delirium · 19-02-2013 8:01pm

mickrock wrote: »

Oldrnwisr does a lot of cutting and pasting.

Is (s)he going to be banned as well?

I think the cognitve dissonance must be getting to you.

comparing your posts to olrnwisrs?

Jack-Nicholson-lol-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3-1658.gif

nagirrac · 19-02-2013 8:14pm

Zombrex wrote: »

You keep searching around for this magical gap where you nuts ideas about "intelligent creativity" or some other clap trap, can live, but you are bang out of luck, and it is getting all so very tiresome

What is tiresome is your complete lack of comprehension of the distinction between biologiocal evolution as a scientific fact and the various theories describing the mechanisms of biological evolution. I am done trying to educate you on the distinction, read the article I posted above by Larry Moran and educate yourself.

nagirrac · 19-02-2013 9:05pm

mickrock wrote: »

Surely those of you who fall into this category must feel a strong sense of cognitive dissonance when considering the nanotechnology and intricate molecular machinery at the cellular level and how unintelligent processes could have brought them about.

Mick, you might have an argument to make there but it is completely undermined by bringing creationist/ID proponents like Behe and Dembski into the discussion. In their attempts to argue for creation being taught alongside evolution in science classes, theirs becomes an argument from stupid.

There is no place for religion in science education, religion belongs in philosophy, which in my view should be compulsory in public school education as well as science. Kids should be taught that there are a great number of people who believe in a supernatural power and this supernatural power gave rise to the universe and everything we observe in it. Science does not and cannot consider supernatural powers, it can only proceed on examination of what it observes.

What you can reasonably say is that what science observes and examines changes over time as new discoveries are made, and what may today be thought of as "supernatural" may well turn out to be entirely due to natural causes (electricity a good example from the past). If something is truly supernatural then by definition we will never observe it (unless it decided to zap us of course

).

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Comments