Correlation between Education and Evolution

Five Solas

Active member
Abiogenesis may have been supernatural in origin, though we have no way of investigating that scientifically.
Here's why we're arguing. I understand abiogenesis to mean life arising from non-life, by non-supernatural means, unless by supernatural you mean some further, fully natural expanse such as a multi-verse. As such, you don't know this to be true by virtue of life presently existing.
We don't know that ID happened. It is the antithesis of a scientific hypothesis since it renders observation and experimentation moot. It cannot be investigated effectively, since any result from any such investigation would be compatible with ID. Whether or not ID is true, or the specific case of God is true, is not something that science can investigate. Even the complete failure to find a viable natural mechanism would not validate ID, and we are a very long way from that scenario. All we can do is leave ID on the table for mystics and philosophers to play with. If and when a natural mechanism is discovered, then ID as an idea will shrink like astrology has shrunk.
You can save all this until we're actually discussing it, or until you run across someone who's not already conversant in it.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Here's why we're arguing. I understand abiogenesis to mean life arising from non-life, by non-supernatural means, unless by supernatural you mean some further, fully natural expanse such as a multi-verse. As such, you don't know this to be true by virtue of life presently existing.
OK. A conflict of definition. Using your definition, I agree with you.
You can save all this until we're actually discussing it, or until you run across someone who's not already conversant in it.
Apologies if I have offended you. I am so used to explaining basics on this site, I made an unwarranted assumption.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
We have imperfect information. Methuselah's wife has no "demonstrated ancestors" in the Bible either. Does that mean that God created her de novo, as He did Adam and Eve? Or did she have parents, but we have no record of who they were?
The Bible does not claim to be a science book - it is a faith book. We have no record of Methuselah's wife because genealogy of the Bible normally follows the male members of the family for reasons that are beyond of the scope of this discussion. As for the complex Cambrian creatures missing ancestors, it is not a purposeful omission by scientists but is a real enigma as to where all these animals came from and how they just seemed to have popped up out of nowhere. In fact, Stephen Meyer wrote an elegant book about the subject, "Darwin's Doubt", just published a few years back.
Evolution can go in either direction. By its nature, the scaffolding route eliminates a part, hence in your terms goes towards less complexity. Blind cave fish are another example of evolution reducing complexity; eyes are useless in a dark cave so evolution removes them. Evolution does not only increase complexity, it can reduce it as well.
Scaffolding as you perceive it does not explain away irreducible complexity which was the sole purpose of its conception. Scaffolding in theory perceives of a complex structure that can be achieved by slow direct graduation and which later breaks down into a less complex IC structure which is not directly achievable by slow direct graduation. In each of your examples there is omission in vital criteria. In the Venus flytrap example, you don't have the Sundew breaking down into the flytrap but rather the development of the flytrap function and the subsequent loss of the glue function. And in both cases, you don't get the final product of an IC structure where the removal of any of it parts causes the structure to cease from functioning. That is why IC structures are normally restricted to the molecular level where any further reduction causes the structure to break down.

You disagree with Professor Behe? The system cannot function unless all parts are present. That is the definition of IC. A two part system can be IC if both parts are needed for correct functioning.
Sure I agree with Professor Behe who still accepts the IC argument. Your argument includes the Irreducible part but leaves out the complexity part. You can't miss it - it's in the name.
Yes it does. That is why a potential falsification is important. It requires more detail about the designer (or designers). If the designer exists we need to know what it is possible for the designer to do, and what is not possible.
Tell that to a SETI researcher searching signals from deep space or an archeologist observing a rock for signs of design or a forensics expert examining a scene for signs of fowl play.
 

rossum

Active member
but is a real enigma as to where all these animals came from and how they just seemed to have popped up out of nowhere.
Not from "nowhere". There were earlier organisms present in the Ediacaran.

In the Venus flytrap example, you don't have the Sundew breaking down into the flytrap but rather the development of the flytrap function and the subsequent loss of the glue function.
Yes. that is how the 'scaffolding' route works. More formally is is called "elimination of functional redundancy". The glue was functionally redundant and was eliminated.

That is why IC structures are normally restricted to the molecular level where any further reduction causes the structure to break down.
That is not what Professor Behe said. A mousetrap is IC and that is not molecule sized (unless you have very small mice).

Tell that to a SETI researcher searching signals from deep space or an archeologist observing a rock for signs of design or a forensics expert examining a scene for signs of fowl play.
You might want to read up on the LGM hypothesis. Of course it was fowl play, it was the chickens that done it. :)
 

Cisco Qid

Member
Not from "nowhere". There were earlier organisms present in the Ediacaran.
None of which are related to the Cambrian organisms which means they still popped out of no where.

Yes. that is how the 'scaffolding' route works. More formally is is called "elimination of functional redundancy". The glue was functionally redundant and was eliminated.
But you still don't have an IC. You can tear off a leaf or any number of parts and it still remains functional
That is not what Professor Behe said. A mousetrap is IC and that is not molecule sized (unless you have very small mice).
Ok, That is why I used the word normally.
 

rossum

Active member
None of which are related to the Cambrian organisms which means they still popped out of no where.
So, you have sequenced the DNA of all those organisms to confirm that they are not related? If all you have is personal opinion then you do not have a lot to go on.

But you still don't have an IC. You can tear off a leaf or any number of parts and it still remains functional
A mousetrap is not IC because you can shave pieces off the base and still have it operational. The "IC" designation only applies to specifically essential parts, not other parts. Are humans not IC because they can lose a finger and still continue to function? You are not using the standard definition here.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
So, you have sequenced the DNA of all those organisms to confirm that they are not related? If all you have is personal opinion then you do not have a lot to go on.
The only two Ediacaran creatures that did not involve any controversy were Yilingia and Kimberella but their unique specialties strongly suggest that they could only represent extinct side branches so that the mystery still remains.

A mousetrap is not IC because you can shave pieces off the base and still have it operational.
As long as you don't damage the base, you haven't removed it.

The "IC" designation only applies to specifically essential parts, not other parts. Are humans not IC because they can lose a finger and still continue to function? You are not using the standard definition here.
If you remove an essential part from anything, you severely damage or break the structure. Humans are not IC, you can remove a kidney, tonsils, apendix, a lung, an arm or both, both eyes, both legs, etc, and the human will still function. And according to your own theory they came about by direct evolution.
 

rossum

Active member

Andy Sist

Active member
Humans are not IC, you can remove a kidney, tonsils, apendix, a lung, an arm or both, both eyes, both legs, etc, and the human will still function
Yes humans are IC. Can you remove a human heart and still have the human function? Can you remove a human's blood supply and still have the human function? Can you remove a human brain and still function as a non-Creationist?
 

Cisco Qid

Member
Günter Bechly has very little scientific credibility. A little more than Ken Ham, but not much more.
He used to be an agnostic and he served as curator for amber and fossil insects in the department of paleontology at the State Museum of Natural History (SMNS) in Stuttgart, Germany but expelled after Bechly came out as an ID proponent. Previous to that he developed one exhibit that featured Darwin's book, "Origin of Species" on one side of a fabricated scale that out-weighed all the published ID books on the other side of the scale. He decided to read the books just to answer any questions that might come his way. But after reading them he became convinced that ID was right.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
Yes humans are IC. Can you remove a human heart and still have the human function? Can you remove a human's blood supply and still have the human function? Can you remove a human brain and still function as a non-Creationist?
So you don't know what an IC is?
 

Andy Sist

Active member
Read up on IC structures before making these type of comments then maybe we can talk.
No need to talk when you don't even understand the ID-Creationist definition of IC you keep pushing. :)

Tell us how a human can function normally without a heart, blood, or a brain.

Your continued running in panic from the simple question is hilarious. :D
 

Cisco Qid

Member
No need to talk when you don't even understand the ID-Creationist definition of IC you keep pushing. :)

Tell us how a human can function normally without a heart, blood, or a brain.

Your continued running in panic from the simple question is hilarious. :D
So to you just about every living thing is an IC structure and needs scaffolding. How did that get past Charles Darwin? Just about no living thing can develop with slow gradation - if we use your version.
 
Last edited:

Andy Sist

Active member
So to you just about every living thing is an IC structure and needs scaffolding.
Individual humans need the scaffolding of their mother's womb. Or did the stork bring you?

Tell us how a human can function normally without a heart, blood, or a brain.

Just about no living thing can develop with slow gradation
You're confusing individuals with species. You're one confused Creationist. No wonder you blither so. :)
 
Top