Gus Bovona
Well-known member
What does any of that have to do with blind faith leading to the acceptance of all sorts of wild, even contradictory claims? How does any of that erase that problem?
Science and Faith in Dialogue
- Thread starter Cisco Qid
- Start date
Project steve is very weak. A list of Steves that support evolution. What statistical basis is that built on? I simply, performed a google search with, "number of scientist that support evolution" which will give my numbers. Also, try this link, "Scientists Who Do Not Believe in Darwinian Evolution", and this one, "3000 Darwin Skeptics" which includes about a dozen Nobel prize winners.
Sorry, too much neener-neener.
Both good working expression of IC's. You might also be confounded by the different expression of the Second law of thermodynamics:
"In an isolated system the entropy always increases"
Another version:
"Not all energy can be converted into work in a cyclic process."
and
"Heat always flows from hot to cold."
They are all the same law but with different expressions. The same goes for Behe's expressions for IC.
My guess is that indirect routes still require experimental validation while IC's are currently observed which means they are the superior evidence. The mere fact that the Neo-darwinist community came up with theoretical indirect paths validates the IC concept. They were perfectly content with the direct version until Behe threw a wrench in their perfect world and now they are in the predicament where they have to keep patching their theory in order to keep up with the observational evidence.
There are many but I will give you two to see how you handle it. Link
Last edited:
They seems like a more detailed version of, "The Privileged Planet" by Guillermo Gonzalez while I also have yet to read (but I did see the video version) and will also keep your book on my back burner. ThanksThe book looks like a good read.
I just finished a book by Hugh Ross entitled "Designed to the Core".
His book contains sixteen chapters with an appendix called - "Solar Elemental Abundance - Rocky Planet Configuration Link"
The book begins with large-scale cosmic structures including our own Laniakea Supercluster of galaxies and continues to progress to our milky way galaxy, and through our solar system including its planetary migration and the moon acting as an orbital stabilizer. He then continues with a detailed discussion about Earth's interior beginning with its core.
Solid references throughout
A sample from chapter 7, "The Milky Way Galaxy Interior", page 101:
"Astronomers would say our galaxy has aged well, thanks in part to its mass and to the small fraction of its mass attributable to stars. For any star within a galaxy to contain enough carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, iron, thorium, and uranium to make the existence of advanced life possible within its planetary system, at least two generations of stars must form, burn, and explode to enrich the gas clouds that form the next generation of stars.
Galaxies more massive than the MWG form stars early and aggressively, quickly exhausting their gas supply. Consequently, star formation ends before an adequate supply of the life-essential elements can be built up. Advanced life also needs elements as heavy as uranium and thorium. Only if uranium and thorium are extraordinarily abundant on a planet can both plate tectonics and a protective magnetosphere be sustained for a long time.
Galaxies less massive than the MWG form their stars so late and at such a slow rate that not enough of the heavier elements, such as iron, copper, zinc, thorium, and uranium, are manufactured. Only in a galaxy like the MWG does star formation begin soon enough and last long enough to produce all the elements essential for advanced life. "
________
.
And yet better than you can produce.
Ah, which comes from a Wiki page - you think that is reliable? interesting. That in turn comes from a Pew Research survey, which, as far as I can see, is based purely on scientists in the US, where a rejection of evolution is unusually high.
Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues
Two issues on which there is widespread agreement among scientists – evolution and climate change – divide the general public. Not only do many Americans
www.pewresearch.org
According to here there are 8.8 million scientists in the world.
Number of scientists worldwide reaches 8.8M, as global research spending grows faster than the economy
Global R&D spending grew faster than the economy between 2014 and 2018 as countries around the world turned to research to bring on the green and digital transitions, says a new UNESCO report. Worldwide, science spending increased by 19% over the four years, while the number of scientists grew...
sciencebusiness.net
Your 3000 is 0.03% of that.
But when IDists slip and slide between the two without making that clear, that is just plain deceit.
Can you show me how scientists change between definitions to fool the public? No. Because they are all talking about the same fundamental thing.
I can do that with the different versions of IC, because different systems will be IC depending on the definition. They are not merely differenmt ways of looking at the same thing, they are two distinct concepts that IDists deliberate conflate to fool the ignorant.
Wrong. The different "expressions" for IC cover different categories of systems.
The bacterial flagellum is a perfect example. It is IC under one definition, but not under the other.
If an IDists wants to claim there are no indirect routes, it is incumbent on him to prove that.
The evolutionist merely has to point out that there could be to destroy IC.
well, the second definition, anyway. the first definition is entirely different of course.
If you think that validates Behe's claims, you are well mistaken!
I am seeing Richard Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez. Sternberg got caught playing loose and fast with the peer review process of a journal. He had already resigned the post and was working out his notice. So what are you claiming here?
Gonzalez was denied tenure due to a lack of research. He played the victim because he is an IDist, and playing the victim pays so well. Tenure is not a right, it is not automatic.
Is this the best you have? You said "example after example of scientists as well as lay persons getting kicked out of their positions for taking a stand on ID". I do not think either of them got kicked out of their position.
It has never been the case where the proponent of a particular view that has been shown to be true are required to provide evidence for any challenging suggestions that could be true. Rather the opposite is the case, the parties making the suggestion are required to provide their own evidence. IC have been shown to be true because its mere presentation has caused the Darwinist community to go into a frenzy in looking for an alternative. In doing so they have removed Darwin's initial criteria for falsification of evolution and replaced it with the new, "any observation that evolution can't explain, we'll simply suggest a way around that observation so that evolution is always true." The latter is certainly the case, when no evidence is required.
Last edited:
Both definitions cover the bacterial flagellum. Removing any part will disable the motor and it can't be reached by any evolutionary path.
In real science there are no claims about what could NOT happen. We are outside real science already with IC.
IDists claim the bacterial flagellum could not evolve. The onus is on them to support that claim. If they claim it cannot have evolved by an indirect route, they need to show that.
And of course they cannot.
It is ludicrous to claim IC is true on the basis that it has been soundly refuted! I cannot believe IDists are so desperate they feel they have to do this.
That is a strong claim. The onus is on you (IDists) to prove it, not on evolutionists to refute it.
That said...
What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.
It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum – the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system – can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.
Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex
Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex
www.newscientist.com
“However, this was likely not a one-time event,” they said. “The extra structures appear to have evolved many times in different species of bacteria, using different building blocks but producing the same functionality.”
“Bacterial motors are complex machines, but with studies like this we can see how they have evolved in distinct steps,” Dr. Beeby added.
Biologists Trace Evolution of Bacterial Flagellar Motors | Sci.News
Using 3D images, biologists at Imperial College London, UK, have shown how bacteria have evolved their ‘flagellar’ motors of different powers to optimize their swimming.
www.sci.news
First off, you asking ID to show that something could not have happened which is proving a negative and is a logical impossibility. Secondly, you are forgetting the order of events. Darwin's claim was, “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.” IC demonstrates that there exists complexity which can not be reached by numerous successive and slight modifications and Darwinist's affirmed this by coming up with alternate and parallel paths to counter Behe's observation. So now instead of the old theory of successive modifications, you now have the new theory of evolution which includes parallel pathways which have not been observed but were simulated in a computer program. And you expect ID proponents to prove that the computer simulations are false rather than the owners proving that their computer simulations are correct by using real evidence? I hope you realize by now how silly that sounds. If not, then I've done my part.
It is not refuted if it has been assimilated into your theory which it has by developing pathways around IC's.
Behe focuses on the ability of the entire system to assemble in a stepwise fashion, even if sub-parts can have functions outside of the final system. And your news reporter that you have linked to hasn't realized that.That is a strong claim. The onus is on you (IDists) to prove it, not on evolutionists to refute it.
That said...
What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum – the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system – can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex
Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex“However, this was likely not a one-time event,” they said. “The extra structures appear to have evolved many times in different species of bacteria, using different building blocks but producing the same functionality.”“Bacterial motors are complex machines, but with studies like this we can see how they have evolved in distinct steps,” Dr. Beeby added.Biologists Trace Evolution of Bacterial Flagellar Motors | Sci.News
Using 3D images, biologists at Imperial College London, UK, have shown how bacteria have evolved their ‘flagellar’ motors of different powers to optimize their swimming.
Last edited:
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
This is a common misconception, at least for certain cases. I can prove that my pocket does not contain a nickel quite easily. I can prove that there is no 500-foot elephant in the White House (no political jokes, please).
Then, there are claims like, "No swans are purple" which would require examining the entire universe to confirm. But that's only one class of negative claims.
You examples are not of events that could have happened which is the context of the message. There is a difference between does happen and could have happened. Does you pocket have a nickle and could your pocket have had a nickel are two diverse questions. IC challenges successive gradual changes and makes them highly improbable to the point of impossible. Therefore, Darwinists have developed a computer simulation where parallel pathways can happen and produce IC's and instead of Darwinists supplying the observational evidence, ID proponents are required to show, or so the argument goes, that they could not have happened. That's science in reverse. And to say that IC has been debunked is a double no-no since they have been incorporated into the theory of evolution as to what parallel pathways have to get around.
Last edited:
Agreed. And yet that is what you are claiming has already happened!
You claimed that both definitions of IC have been shown to apply to the bacteria flagellum, the second of which requires IDists to do what you now admit is impossible.
Odd that.
And here you are again claiming IC has shown something could never happen, directly after saying that "is a logical impossibility".
Do you actually think about what you post, or does trot out whatever nonsense you are told to regurgitate? Seriously, Cisco...
And we have a whole bunch of intermediates we can see in nature that are part way to the bacterial flagellum, and doing just fine.
If IDists are claiming IC systems cannot evolve, then of course I expect them to prove that.
If that is impossible - and I agree it is - then the claims of IC are dead in the water. That does not mean you get a free pass to rescue your pet theory, that means your pet theory is trash.
I see IC as being the whole argument that ends with concluding evolution is wrong. If you want to claim a subset of that turned out to be useful, then okay.
Behe focuses on the direct route because that is the only one he can. But there is no reason to suppose evolution happened to take that route. He is therefore obliged to use the first definition to prove a system is IC, then quietly swap to the second definition before fallaciously concluding the system could not evolve by any route.
And he has to do that because, as you admitted at the start, actually showing it could not evolve "is a logical impossibility".
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
What? Of course having a nickel in may pocket is something that could have happened.
And how does that matter for proving the negative claim that I don't have a nickel in my pocket?
If it is the case that proving a negative is an impossibility then it does not just apply to Darwinian parallel pathways but to everything because it would be a universal law.
It is not possible to reach an IC system by direct successive routes and these are the routes that Darwinian evolutionists have labored to build a case in support of evolution. It is also these routes that are used to explain apparent design. The other pathways of indirect evolution may be possible but without the evidence to support them there is no reason to embrace them and why should we be required to disprove routes that have no evidence. Indirect pathways have to move forward before you can push them back.
Last edited:
rossum
Well-known member
A Venus Flytrap is similar to a mousetrap, one of Behe's examples of an IC system. There is an obvious indirect route to a Venus Flytrap, using the 'scaffolding' indirect route.
A Sundew catches insects with sticky hairs, and then closes slowly (taking minutes) to bring more hairs to bear and digest the insect. The sticky hairs hold the insect in place while the leaf closes round it. Speed up the closure and reduce the stickiness in step, which natural selection will control. Closure gets faster, stickiness reduces and the juice can be better optimised for digestion. Eventually the closure is fast enough to capture the insect, the hairs are reduced to non-sticky triggers and the juices are completely optimised for digestion with no need to be sticky.
The stickiness is the scaffolding, which is needed while the trap is evolving, but can be discarded once the trap is complete.
Oh yes, Sundews and Venus Flytraps are close relatives.
Okay. You are the one who said it is impossible.
So what? They go for the obvious routes first.
If you are claiming an IC system cannot evolve, even by an indirect route, the onus is on you to support the claim.
If you cannot do that - and clearly you cannot - then IC is dead.
You will note that I did not claim that IC cannot evolve by indirect routes but rather that there is no evidence for indirect routes. I also said that there is no need to produce evidence against something that has no evidence. And IC is more alive now than ever before.
Sorry for a lack of response, it's not that I don't care, it's just that I don't believe that this avenue is getting us anywhere. Or maybe, I just don't care.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
I feel ya. ; )
However, I think it is important because part of your argument (admittedly, just a part) depended on the idea that a negative claim can't be proved or demonstrated, and that is incorrect, as I've showed in my earlier posts here.
I might have been wrong about the disproving a negative part. I just knew that there was a fallacy in there some place. I mean the guy was shifting the burden proof to us. Or that we had to prove parallel pathways didn't work rather than the proponents of the theory providing their own evidence. The logical fallacy is actually "shifting the burden of proof". For example, "I saw the real Santa Claus flying overhead with his sled and raindeer last night." And if you can't disprove that claim then it must be true. In our case we propose that parallel pathways can lead to IC's and although there is no evidence for it, you need to prove that they don't work. This is "shifting the burden of proof" and is listed as a fallacy. The term that I used was "proving a negative" which has commonly been mistaken for a fallacy. Thanks for the correction.
Last edited:
Actually, I note that you did claim exactly that. You, post #86: "Both definitions cover the bacterial flagellum. Removing any part will disable the motor and it can't be reached by any evolutionary path." And I also note that you want to rewrite history to revise your position. You are aware that your old posts are saved, right? Anyone can go back and check what you said previously. What are you trying pull here? And why did you think you could get away with it?
If you are making the claim that "it can't be reached by any evolutionary path" then there is need to support that claim - you need to produce the evidence.
If you have now abandoned that position and are merely claiming there is no evidence for indirect routes, then fair enough. But where does that leave the IC argument?
- There is no direct evolutionary route and we do not know if whether or not there are indirect evolutionary routes.
- Therefore evolution may or may not be true
Furthermore, what would you accept as evidence for an indirect route?
Biologists Trace Evolution of Bacterial Flagellar Motors | Sci.News
Using 3D images, biologists at Imperial College London, UK, have shown how bacteria have evolved their ‘flagellar’ motors of different powers to optimize their swimming.
www.sci.news
So why the sudden need to abandon your early position to the much weaker claim that there is no evidence yet of any indirect route?