Login

Join for Free!
118830 members


Bird-Dinosaur News

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby alextemplet » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:36 pm

I'm not sure "impatient" is really a fair word when I've been asking the same question for a few weeks now, and at least a simple yes or no could've been given quite some time ago. Just keep in mind that if you really do want to talk about science, you can't just dismiss arguments as "straw men" before ever reading them. That is exactly the definition of closed-minded.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AstusAleator » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:40 pm

AFJ wrote:But P1 you say, and I agree can not be argued with, so to say it doesn't exist is too strong.


I'm not sure what you're saying here. To say what doesn't exist? I never refuted p1; however, I did refute p2 which makes the conclusion irrelevant. Perhaps the same conclusion can be reached by another logical argument - which is why I don't say that the conclusion is false as a statement - and challenge you or anyone else to present a logical argument that solidly supports that conclusion.

I must be honest, I did not get to your example of weather...
...My first thoughts are that weather is probably a more open system than a cell say...

My purpose was to use a system that was non-biological. Why? Because if you say a cell is designed for a function, and I use a cell as an example of something that has occurred entirely by natural processes and only has empirical function... we're at an impasse.
To make my point, I wanted to demonstrate to you that there are systems which you will easily accept as naturally occurring, that have apparent functions.


So - dithering aside - please respond to the logic. Poke holes if you can, or find a different argument that better represents your stance.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AFJ » Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:43 pm

I'm not sure what you're saying here. To say what doesn't exist?


Irreducible complexity. There had been a comment made that it doesn't exist. It has allegedly been "disproven" by Ken Miller (there is a difference between a refutation and disproving something). Usually, the wording in the conclusions of scientists who advocate IC goes like "Darwinian processes can not account for this." Not "this proves design."

Let me start over to be clear, as I have some time.

BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM HAS THE MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AN ELECTRIC MOTOR
1. There are 40 protein parts required to form a flagellum motor
2 These parts fit together to empirically function as the following:
a. rotor
b. stator--stator works with armature in electric motors to create a electromagnetic spinning force.
c. U-joint
d. a drive shaft with bushings
3. There is of course a filament which functions as a propeller

Scott Minnich, Molecular Biologist, University of Idaho
It is not convenient that we give them these names, that is truly their function.


It is fueled by an acid flow. Michael Behe, Biochemist, Lehigh University
It uses a flow of acid from outside the cell to inside of the cell to power the propellor.


Other notable features.
"Two gears, forward and reverse, water cooled, proton motive force...some of these machines can turn up to 100,000 RPMs...." Scott Minnich, MB, U of Idaho


Scientific Conclusion--Scientifically one can only say the given statement, that "the bacterial flagellum has the mechanical characteristics of an electric motor" with a filament for a propeller. The bacteria does not have and is not motive by "microscopic muscle," or general protoplasm. I think it is safe and scientific to call it a machine and a motor. To say this is not the case would be to say that a motor is not a motor.

Unscientific Conclusions--Now, to enter into the origin of this, whether it evolved, or whether it was by creative fiat is unprovable by the observable evidence in the flagellum itself. Those who would argue otherwise are using inductive reasoning.

Scientific Statements
1. The bacterial flagellum has the mechanical characteristics of an electric motor.

2. Since the an electric motor is designed, it is scientific to say --not "the BF is designed," but the "the BF has the mechanical characteristics of a designed motor."

3. Those who argue otherwise, must then argue that 1) A motor is not designed and/or 2) the BF does not have the mechanical characteristics of a motor.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm


Postby alextemplet » Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:17 pm

AFJ wrote:Scientific Statements
1. The bacterial flagellum has the mechanical characteristics of an electric motor.

2. Since the an electric motor is designed, it is scientific to say --not "the BF is designed," but the "the BF has the mechanical characteristics of a designed motor."

3. Those who argue otherwise, must then argue that 1) A motor is not designed and/or 2) the BF does not have the mechanical characteristics of a motor.


Or they could argue that it is possible for it to have originated through evolutionary processes.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby AstusAleator » Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:27 pm

Irreducible Complexity - as a concept - is more than just its definition.
"an irreducibly complex system [is] one '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'. " Wikipedia


The implication of IC is that if biological systems are apparently irreducible, then they could not have evolved.

Clearly there are man-made systems which are irreducible for their given function. Natural systems can be subjectively irreducible according to their empirical function. But to then take this as proof that the natural systems did not evolve is fallacious.
--So this is why Alex says IC doesn't exist
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AFJ » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:46 am

Alex wrote
I've been asking the same question for a few weeks now, and at least a simple yes or no could've been given quite some time ago.


Alex I gave you my email, and said it was fine. Drop me a line at gadabout44@yahoo.com.

By the way, I read Ken Miller's "The Flagellum Unspun," online. I watched some of his mousetrap rebuttals. Read Michael Behe's rebuttal to rebuttals. Have thoughts but no time right now. See, Alex even a hard headed creationist like me actually reads science. I just have a non-Darwinian pair of glasses on.

I do want to say that though we disagree, and I'm in the minority here--everyone here is rather civil which I do respect. Thank you.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Postby alextemplet » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:42 pm

I sent you an e-mail a few weeks ago and never got a reply. If you didn't get it I can send another.

AFJ wrote:I just have a non-Darwinian pair of glasses on.


This is what concerns me; in science, one should ideally not have "glasses" at all. What you seem to be saying is that you are approaching this issue with an already-made assumption and belief system that you expect the evidence to validate. Science requires a person to forego such assumptions, look at the evidence first, and then decide on a theory. To assume a theory before even looking at the evidence is not only unscientific, but also illogical.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AFJ » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:25 am

This is what concerns me; in science, one should ideally not have "glasses" at all. What you seem to be saying is that you are approaching this issue with an already-made assumption and belief system that you expect the evidence to validate. Science requires a person to forego such assumptions, look at the evidence first, and then decide on a theory. To assume a theory before even looking at the evidence is not only unscientific, but also illogical.


I know this is going to be wordy, but bear with me because I believe there is content here.

How can we interpret or deal with the world around us without presuppositions. We have to have foundational starting points when we interpret data. Otherwise we would never sit in a chair. We assume it's going to hold us based on the fact that other chairs have held us.

There are two ways of looking at the historical science of our origin.

A. Darwin looked at the resemblances in characteristics of different organisms, saw all the similarities, but with differences, and assumed that all species had come from a common ancestor. He made assumptions of what took place in our past, based only on the observations he made in the present. Today many people do the same thing. Because two different organisms contain similar protein or DNA they assume it is INHERITED from a common ancestor. They assume something took place in the past, by INTERPRETING observation in the present. MAY I ADD THAT THIS DEDUCTION IS ONLY OBTAINED BY THE RULING OUT OF SPONTANEOUS CREATION. Who set this kind of thinking in motion but Darwin. Therefore, if you think this way you are following his DOCTRINE. It is a doctrine--a guiding principle set by past decisions or tenants. Therefore you have Darwinian glasses on. But there is another way to look at the same data.

B.If God created, would He create each thing completely different, with no similarities? Would he make one with amino acids, another with lipids, another with fats, another with sugars, another with something new? Why would he do that--why would he want to do that? He makes it with the same thing. If an architect or builder builds, he uses similar building materials, whether with steel, or with wood, or with concrete. He also uses similar building techniques. He bases it on the same math and geometry. He knows the building codes and principles whether he is building a corner, a wall, a roof, or a floor.

So when I say I do not have Darwinian glasses on, it means I do not follow Darwin's doctrine--I do not follow his assumptions. But I assume--just as Issac Newton assumed, whom we can thank for calculus, that God is real and designed all things--and he put the ability to adapt for their survival. just like someone who builds skyscrapers designs flexibility in the building, so it can withstand an earthquake (this is only an illustration for flexibility, not Darwinian principles of evolutionary pressure, or changes in phenotype).
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Postby alextemplet » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:18 pm

AFJ, do you seriously mean to propose that Newton began with an assumption of calculus, and that Einstein began with an assumption of relativity? Or, for that matter, that Copernicus began with an assumption of heliocentricism, and that is all this is, a mere assumption? So what you are telling me is that the earth very well might be the center of the solar system, because this is all just based on assumptions?

Darwin did not begin with an assumption of common descent; he began like everyone else at that time believing in direct creation, and only abandoned that belief when he saw evidence to the contrary. This is how science works: you form theories based on evidence, not on assumptions. Do you think a forensic investigator assumes who is the murderer before he ever even looks at the crime scene, and then simply looks for evidence to back up what he has already decided? Of course not! Just as in any other science, he must examine the evidence first, and then draw conclusions, not the other way around.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AstusAleator » Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:53 pm

That red-headed guy on CSI: Miami always seems to have it figured out before they're done with the science...

Yes biologists usually operate under the assumption that the species they study evolved. It is only called an assumption because we can never truly know 100%. However, this "assumption" is based on volumes of data accumulated throughout the last century.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AFJ » Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:12 am

AFJ, do you seriously mean to propose that Newton began with an assumption of calculus, and that Einstein began with an assumption of relativity?


I never said he began with an assumption. He believed in God quite wholeheartedly, and wrote about his belief--scientifically that would be an assumption. Calculus is present mathematics, not historical science as the subject of origins is.

Why do you not understand that there are only two basic assumptions one can make about this subject? Either it evolved from naturalistic processes, or it was designed by creative fiat, or I guess we can have the hybrid--God used evolution.

As for Darwin's belief in God--His wife was unitarian, and there are letters from her that he held dear where she pleaded with him about the importance of general revelation (not the last book of the bible) and saving faith. I know that he waited quite a while after his voyage to publish Origin of Species, only sharing his ideas with close friends, because of his concerns about rejection. The country at that time considered itself "Christian."
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Postby alextemplet » Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:35 am

AFJ wrote:Why do you not understand that there are only two basic assumptions one can make about this subject?


Why do you not understand that science is based on evidence, not assumptions?
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests