Give me a break!
Your assertions are as empty as you claim mine to be.
You can no more demonstrate the creation of an IC by Evolution than I can demonstrate the impossibility of it.
Then again, you can’t demonstrate evolution doing anything. All you have is the before and after (Sometimes not even the before) with an assertion of what happened in between.
Richard
It does make me wonder how many ID proponents would actually fit better in the Evolutionary Creationist category. If it’s a matter of God guiding mutations in an undetectable manner, then EC would seem to be a good fit. The hangup seems to be around detectability and how they approach the relationship between science, theology, and belief. ECs seem to be able to combine the science of evolution and their intuitions about design, but ID proponents seem to struggle to find that middle ground.
If all you have to offer is ridicule, I think that says a lot.
It s better than banging my head against a brick wal.
Sometimes it takes ridicule to clarify things, apparently, and your insults about my knowledge are no better.
Richard
Edit.
Would the fact that i can’t demonstrate that a chocolate tea pot would melt mean that it wouldn’t?
that is your logic.
A converse is not logically valid.
I’ve built towers of cards that were constructed “in parts” and functioned just fine even though when I was done there was no way to remove a single card without toppling the whole thing.
“Proving” anything non-trivial in science is quite difficult.
Proving that something could not have evolved is not readily achieved. There’s always the possibility of things evolving in a way that we had not thought of. Biological complexity does evolve. We can see changes over time in molecular systems and biological structures. Feathers are made of the same types of material as other similar biological structures. Claiming that flagellae or feathers or whatever “could not evolve” is incorrect in that sense. If the right mutations occur, these features will appear, A more precise claim would be that the necessary mutations are too unlikely to occur within the available time. But proving it to be unlikely is problematic. Although there are various claims to provide probabilities, the reality is that we do not have adequate data to calculate appropriate probabilities. [That applies equally to claiming that the mutations are likely or unlikely.] A major challenge is the fact that we don’t really know what range of possibilities would do just as well. There are billions of different DNA sequences that all work to code for producing a human, though of course those sequences are quite similar to each other. If I am dealt a hand of 13 cards for playing bridge, should I accuse the dealer of cheating because there is only a 1 in about 2*10^27 chance of people getting that exact set of cards? No, because the probability of getting some set of cards was 100%. We don’t know exactly how many possible DNA sequences would code for making a human. And do we have to actually code for making humans? Would it make much difference if, instead of mammal primates, no asteroid had hit at the end of the Cretaceous and some sort of dinosaur had developed human-like intelligence instead? The answer depends entirely on your subjective assessment of what is “much difference”.
Again, that does not prove that things did evolve. But it raises questions about ID claims to prove that things did not evolve.
That is a belief, not a certainty. Your first statement confirms it.
Eureeka!
That is all I have ever claimed.
Richard
Only in mathematics. Linguistically I have the correct meaning.
Your arguments always ignore the fact that there is life involved. For the construction to survive in evolution it must be both viable, and competitive.
Your house of cards collapses at the first move.
Richard
I am not keen on AI , but out of curiosity i asked it about irreducibiity/
When it honed in on IC I got two answers
In terms of the proposal IC means what I said. That the system cannot be made up incrementally.
However, it then claimed that Biological science contests that view and gave several mechanisms it is claimed can circumnavigate the need for each element to be viable, the main ones being that it might have a different function up to that point, or part of a different system reappropriated.
I am sorry, I have to smile.
There is stubborn logic in those get outs. I can easily see how they can be appealing. I can also se that they might appear compelling. What they fail to account for is why,
There is no logical reason why a self contained system should suddenly attach itself to other self contained systems to form a new one. There is no way nature could know that to make a complex system it first has to grow three or four independent ones to combine at the last minute. You are talking building with a goal.
Evolution cannot have goals. Evolution cannot have a predetermined destination Both are contradictory to a system without guidance or intelligence
IC is specifically cited as a proof of intelligent involvement. The scientific wriggling and solutions also imply intelligence and guidance.
So unless you are going to admit that there is an intelligence guiding evolution IC stands as an argument against ToE.
Richard
Edit.
An example of the idea that a function could change is the old chestnut of the feather.
Downy feathers are for warmth and could have evolved for that purpose. A flight feather is just an adaption. Brilliant.
I wonder if these scientists realise the difference between a downy feather and a flight feather? Or the fluke that would produce such a thing just in time to fledge wings?
Oh yes, it could be a display. Display feathers can have all the elements of flight feathers, but why would they? the flexible rigidity of the structure is what might be termed over engineered for a simple flag or signpost. I guess you could stretch a point. (And science will take any point they can stretch)
What Behe defined it to mean, as already provided.
You don’t even know what those examples are.
I’m claiming that they could once, but have changed so that they can’t any more.
You really should have noticed by now that most evolution works by changes to existing components and not by adding new ones.
Try to escape from the trap of thinking that everyone who disagrees with you must know less than you do.
The probability that these scientists disagree with you because they know more about feathers than you do is non-zero.
This comment reminded me of the most recent podcast on Biologos with Sy Garte. It is worth listening to, and I ordered and started reading his book. It advocates that what we see in nature including evolution points to (not proves) God, as I understand it, having not gotten very far in the book. I started a new topic for any who wish to discuss that podcast or his book.
But, of course, you didn’t bother to read my last post.
I am fully aware of the Scientific wriggling. You are ony kidding yourselves.
It seems that you can only think of one thing at a time. The principle you are claiming works in other fields but not in the competitive natural environment of evolution. As I said above, it also implies intelligence and guiding (But you wil deny that, as being “cause Richard says so”)
You can talk!
What they know and what they say seem to be different. If they thin it works, say it. No one will challenge them. They are scientists.
Obviously i am in the same camp, but it is nt the scientific view. I argue God’s inclusion where Science cannot or refuses to see it. What i object to is when scientists fail to see that what they are suggesting requires guidance or intelligence to achieve it, when TOE claims no such intelligence or guidance.
Why is not a scientific question, and that is the start of the problem. The idea that a change must have a reason to exist other than it works is not within their remit. If that reason is that it makes up a complex system then such a system is either a cosmic fluke, or the result of intelligence. Science seems to think that the whole of creation is one big cosmic fluke. with no intelligence behind it. However, I suggest that there is a reason why people look at nature and see God rather than a cosmic fluke.
Richard
Yes, you propose that IC systems can’t evolve. We get that. We disagree. Our disagreement does not require IC systems to not exist.
We could use the pyramids in Giza as an analogy. Some claim that humans weren’t capable of building the pyramids, so they argue aliens had to be involved. Others will claim that humans of the time were more than capable of building those pyramids. Do those who think humans built the pyramids also have to claim that they pyramids don’t exist simply because other people think aliens helped build them?
That’s an argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy.
That’s just a handwave. If you are going to argue that IC systems can’t evolve then you need to demonstrate that there are no possible pathways for their evolution. You haven’t done that. All you have done is make empty assertions and used ridicule.
That would be the one I have already replied to.
Clean up on KR3…
The evolution of the irreducibly complex mammalian ear bone.
First, the mammalian middle ear has three bones (incus, stapes, and malleus) where the removal of any one of these bones results in the middle ear no longer functioning.
Reptiles have a single middle ear bone and three lower jaw bones. Mammals have three middle ear bones and a single lower jaw bone. Two of those jaw bones evolved to become middle ear bones, and we have the step by step process preserved in the fossil record.
The lower jaw bones evolved to take on a new function as part of an irreducibly complex system, and we can see the steps in the fossil record.
Pyramids are not alive.
No it is a Why question, which means you refuse to contemplate it.
Your claims about incredulity are just that. They mean you do not have to confront it. I would have thought that common sense existed in science but may be I am wrong about that.
More deflection. keep it up
Like I said elsewhere , sometimes ridicule is all that is left when people just refuse point blank to see because it doesn’t fit their mindset.
Keep going.
it is so much easier when you do not make a proper argument.
Richard
Why do you use fallacious arguments? I think the answer is pretty apparent.
It means your argument is illogical.
Science exists because common sense is often wrong. Common sense is nothing more than human intuition, and it is fallible.
Logical fallacies are all you have left.
When you have something more than incredulity, let us know.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I do not need to change my views, and you refuse to adjust yours.
(I am not claiming you must agree with me, or that I am right, but that is what you will see, because that is what you expect of me)
Makes discussion pointless, not that we actually discuss anything. it is mostly posturing on your part and assertion.
When you wish to see things from a different perspective, let me know.
In the mean time just keep asserting away. it is what you do best.
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
