Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DNA mutates and undergoes a process called genetic drift, and changes and thus creates diversity. Natural selection supports certain variations in certain environments (polar bears in polar regions, todays non furry elephants in warm regions), and by supporting these variations, promotes large splits in living things, morphologically. And so all living things that are DNA based (all living things on the planet including the single celled organisms), will have a lot of diversity. In todays time, diversity is actually a necessity for survival. Things like incest lead to extinction of organisms, such as the situation the cheetah is currently struggling with now.

This just streghthens ones faith in a Creator.

Hasan Rajabali says look at an Artist. You can tell who painted 'what' by their style of painting. Why cant this be applied to similarity between Allahs creations. The similarities show the signiture of 1 Creator.

If evolution is as you have described it then why havnt "humans" evolved into something different in the last 1000000 years? The world has changed significantly yet we are still the same.

Yes people live longer, peopel were taller, in Afghanistan children are walking bear foot in the Tehran cold (if you or me were to do that our feed would get frost bit).

We adapt to our surroundings but to evolve into something else sounds abit far fetched. Certain beings having the same genetic traits as humans doesnt nessasarily mean we have evolved but more so there is 1 Artist.

Edited by asharp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just streghthens ones faith in a Creator.

Hasan Rajabali says look at an Artist. You can tell who painted 'what' by their style of painting. Why cant this be applied to similarity between Allahs creations. The similarities show the signiture of 1 Creator.

If evolution is as you have described it then why havnt "humans" evolved into something different in the last 1,000,000 years? The world has changed significantly yet we are still the same.

Yes people live longer, peopel were taller, in Afghanistan children are walking bear foot in the Tehran cold (if you or me were to do that our feed would get frost bit).

We adapt to our surroundings but to evolve into something else sounds abit far fetched. Certain beings having the same genetic traits as humans doesnt nessasarily mean we have evolved but more so there is 1 Artist.

1 million years ago, we were very different. Check out the video i, well ill just repost it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Homo_sapiens

and prior to archaic sapiens, homo erectus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

there are no fossils of any species of human that is abnormally taller than we are.

you should check out the stuff that i have stated previously within this topic. Then comment on that stuff, rather than bypassing what has previously been stated and bringing up your own concepts that uve had prior to opening this topic.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about those papers is, often ID in the sense of what they support, isnt against evolution. i just would like to put that out there. Secondly, if you find a website that has anything religious in it, or anything political n it, or anything media related in it. The vast majority of the time, im talking 99% of the time, there will be false info in it. I dont care if its huran yahya or whatever his name is, or if its alex jones, or if its time magazine, or kent hovind, or if its whatever...trust me, there is a really good chance it has false info in it.

Only the peer reviewed published papers are made by the scientists, and its only the scientists who have any clue about this stuff beyond a highschool education. Im not saying guys like huran yahya are ignorant, im sure the man is brilliant when it comes to other things.

But one thing you absolutly do not want to do, is take the word of a non scientist, about science, at least not without examining his or her sources.

Thats why its important. I cant tell you how many times ive had a christian come up to me and tell me about scientific evidence for dinosaurs living 6000 years ago.

Now, i never said there werent papers on intelligent design (which 99% of which arent even against theistic evolution), what im saying is, if you have one, and you have read it and you think it does rebuke evolution. Then I will be more than happy to discuss it with you.

If you have not read them and do not know what theyre actually about, i would recommend not promoting them.

What do you think of Michael Behe's work?

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think of Michael Behe's work?

There was actually a court case: - Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - you might like to read about.

It involves Intelligent Design and asks direct question in court to Mr Behe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Part of its conclusion were:

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

I can find transcripts of the interview with Michael Behe, if it will help you.

All the best.

*

......

you should check out the stuff that i have stated previously within this topic.

Then comment on that stuff, rather than bypassing what has previously been stated and bringing up your own concepts that uve had prior to opening this topic.

Some very good sites,

Have you come across this one yet:

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0

All the best.

.

Edited by Quisant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stefan

What do you think of Michael Behe's work?

Michael Behe's claims of "irreducible complexity" found in nature were shown to be worthless by the catholic biologist Ken Miller.

Michael Behe claimed to have his own definition of "science" which makes astrology a science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was actually a court case: - Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - you might like to read about.

I am aware of that case. The dispute over whether ID is falsifiable or not is not really what Behe focuses on. His books on evolution are worth reading.

Michael Behe's claims of "irreducible complexity" found in nature were shown to be worthless by the catholic biologist Ken Miller.

Unless I am missing something, I think Behe refuted Miller quite well. Why don’t you give an example of how Miller shows that Irreducible complexity is “worthless”?

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stefan

Unless I am missing something, I think Behe refuted Miller quite well. Why don’t you give an example of how Miller shows that Irreducible complexity is “worthless”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think of Michael Behe's work?

Michael Behe, from my understanding is a very intellegent man. As a matter of fact, my friend has a book of his that i should be reading in the next couple weeks.

However, ive heard Behes concepts of irreducible complexity, and i have a general understanding of what kinds of motor proteins he argues for. And i think the concept of intelligent design could be argued for such a thing, but in my personal opinion, hes using an "argument from incredulity", and not only that, as someone mentioned before, he apparently failed to rationally support the idea in discussion against other biologists such as ken miller (who wrote my bio book) among others.

So yea, smart man, but i dont agree with him. Also, he doesnt really argue against evolution in the sense of that it happened. Not that i have heard anyway. I dont think anyone really does, probably because they cant. So instead, often these ID advocates, insist on evolution, "with help", which is essentially ID.

Here let me dig up a debate.

The very first guy is a philosopher, so i wouldnt pay hm much mind, but after that, u get behe, and berlinski and miller. And...toward the end (videos 6-8) the ID people just start getting beat down

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT3NZTGCtrI&playnext=1&list=PL6AA07006B8F77AEF

I am aware of that case. The dispute over whether ID is falsifiable or not is not really what Behe focuses on. His books on evolution are worth reading.

Unless I am missing something, I think Behe refuted Miller quite well. Why don’t you give an example of how Miller shows that Irreducible complexity is “worthless”?

Ken miller used the example with the mouse trap, demonstrating that, a morphological structure, in prior stages to full completeness, can still be usefull.

The same goes for things like, evolution of the eye, or evolution of our digestive system, or evolution of feathers.

A bird doesnt need to be able to fly, to make use of feathers. Because they have other beneficial functions outside of flying. And so, in the case of Behes motor proteins, the, i dont know the identification for the parts o them, but the part used as the tail that rotates, can be found in other organisms as some form of DNA injectors. I havent seen ken millers talk on this in a few years, so dont quote me on that. The main point is, irreducible complexity is an argument made from incredulity. Basically Behe says "i dont believe it" therefore it must not be true. As opposed to saying, i dont believe its possible, but it may be...lets test it and find out.

So he essentially is working backwards in the scientific method.

Oh wow, ive never seen this video, thanks for that stephan. Thats the same speech that he talked about chromosome number 2 in. Do u know where me may be able to find the rest?

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a very poor refutation. He uses a dishonest straw man argument:

By equating Behe's treatment of blood clotting with that of Pandas (see above), and by quoting Pandas' statement that "Only when all the components of the [blood clotting] system are present and in good working order does the system function properly," Miller implied to Judge Jones that according to Darwin's Black Box the entire blood-clotting cascade is irreducibly complex. Wrong. While Pandas made the claim of irreducible complexity with respect to the entire blood-clotting cascade, Behe in Darwin's Black Box did not.
dolphins and jawed fish still have the factors in the blood-clotting cascade that Behe considers irreducibly complex

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/12/how_kenneth_miller_used_smokea014861.html

It's a good article that directly addresses the points made by Miller in that video.

An irreducibly complex system may have additional parts that are not required for the basic functioning of the system. Removing those parts does not show that the system is not irreducibly complex.

I think the other major mistake that Miller makes is that he compares two completely different species which may have had two completely different irreducibly complex systems (which they don't the in case). If one irreducibly complex system does not have components that another does have, it doesn't mean that the system is not irreducibly complex! Cars and motorcycles are both irreducible complex yet they don't have the same parts.

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yea, smart man, but i dont agree with him. Also, he doesnt really argue against evolution in the sense of that it happened. Not that i have heard anyway. I dont think anyone really does, probably because they cant. So instead, often these ID advocates, insist on evolution, "with help", which is essentially ID.

He actually believes in common descent but rejects that evolution was likely using Neo-Darwinian means. Unlike him, many other ID theorists reject common descent.

Ken miller used the example with the mouse trap, demonstrating that, a morphological structure, in prior stages to full completeness, can still be usefull.

Miller fails to see that every step in his 'evolution' of the mousetrap is actually irreducibly complex and intelligently designed. It seems like he refutes himself with that example.

The multiple changes that he makes at each stage are really improbable with Darwinian mechanics.

A bird doesnt need to be able to fly, to make use of feathers. Because they have other beneficial functions outside of flying. And so, in the case of Behes motor proteins, the, i dont know the identification for the parts o them, but the part used as the tail that rotates, can be found in other organisms as some form of DNA injectors. I havent seen ken millers talk on this in a few years, so dont quote me on that.

Of course certain parts can be used for different functions in different situations. However adapting those parts and positioning them correctly so that they work correctly in a new system, requires several very very very lucky mutations.

The main point is, irreducible complexity is an argument made from incredulity.

We do live in the real world. An untamed imagination should not be allowed to give explanations that don't exist in reality. For as long as we can't see any rational description (and evidence) for how Neo-Darwinian mechanisms can create irreducibly complex systems, we cannot assume that Neo-Darwinism is true. Evolution may have occured using other mechanisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a very poor refutation. He uses a dishonest straw man argument:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/12/how_kenneth_miller_used_smokea014861.html

It's a good article that directly addresses the points made by Miller in that video.

An irreducibly complex system may have additional parts that are not required for the basic functioning of the system. Removing those parts does not show that the system is not irreducibly complex.

I think the other major mistake that Miller makes is that he compares two completely different species which may have had two completely different irreducibly complex systems (which they don't the in case). If one irreducibly complex system does not have components that another does have, it doesn't mean that the system is not irreducibly complex! Cars and motorcycles are both irreducible complex yet they don't have the same parts.

Ken Miller directly refuted the statement within of Pandas and people. By demonstrating that certain proteins do hold functions, even without the assistance of others, in an example used by Behe himself.

The fact that simple pieces of a major structure can be used beneficially, even without the assistance of other proteins, demonstrates that it is functional even on its own. Which is the opposite of what Behe is saying.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He actually believes in common descent but rejects that evolution was likely using Neo-Darwinian means. Unlike him, many other ID theorists reject common descent.

Miller fails to see that every step in his 'evolution' of the mousetrap is actually irreducibly complex and intelligently designed. It seems like he refutes himself with that example.

The multiple changes that he makes at each stage are really improbable with Darwinian mechanics.

Of course certain parts can be used for different functions in different situations. However adapting those parts and positioning them correctly so that they work correctly in a new system, requires several very very very lucky mutations.

We do live in the real world. An untamed imagination should not be allowed to give explanations that don't exist in reality. For as long as we can't see any rational description (and evidence) for how Neo-Darwinian mechanisms can create irreducibly complex systems, we cannot assume that Neo-Darwinism is true. Evolution may have occured using other mechanisms.

What is improbable about mutations benefiting an organism? its been recorded to have happened, and observed.

Ive read your topic and checked out the videos.

And i wont even argue against it simply because...Behe is supporting evolution. He is not supporting darwinian naturalistic evolution, but hes supporting evolution none the less. Or, common descent if ud prefer that. And he simply is supporting that a designer assisted life in evolution.

With that said, Behe is in support of what i have said about the fossil succession along with ERVs and phylogenetic trees, and im ok with that. As long as he understands that we humans have evolved from more primitive beings.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was actually a court case: - Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - you might like to read about.

It involves Intelligent Design and asks direct question in court to Mr Behe.

http://en.wikipedia....School_District

Part of its conclusion were:

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

I can find transcripts of the interview with Michael Behe, if it will help you.

All the best.

*

Some very good sites,

Have you come across this one yet:

http://talkorigins.o...c/list.html#CB0

All the best.

.

bismillah.gifsalam.gif

I had to watch the thing about the Dover area school district and I almost died of boredom. Anyways it didn't conclude that intelligent design was a false concept. It was concluded that it is not a scientific concept and therefore can not be proven and should not be taught in a science class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/numeric.html

heres a link with a diagram of the earth history geologic time scale.

In the next day or so i plan to begin relating this all to Adam and Eve. So if anyone has further questions or concerns, feel free to say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of mutation has become evolution. This so-called theory is just an SF scenario. Charles Darwin he one of the biggest liars in human history. :shaytan:

Read the PUBMED links from the very first post i made. Mutations have been observed to have occurred in humans and have made anatomical changes. Also in the link of the creation-evolution debate posted above with michael behe, berlinski and miller, examples of mutations and evolution that have been observed are given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of mutation has become evolution. This so-called theory is just an SF scenario. Charles Darwin he one of the biggest liars in human history. :shaytan:

This statement is not only libel, it also demonstrates your profound ignorance.

Just because reality does not conform to your ideology does not make it untrue. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains how it works, to the best of our current knowledge. The theory will be improved over time, as we gain more knowledge.

Isn't the self-correcting nature of science wonderful? Without science you wouldn't have clean water to drink, air conditioning in your home, a computer to make anti-science internet posts, or any of the other amenities you take for granted.

Edited by Papples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This statement is not only libel, it also demonstrates your profound ignorance.

Just because reality does not conform to your ideology does not make it untrue. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains how it works, to the best of our current knowledge. The theory will be improved over time, as we gain more knowledge.

Isn't the self-correcting nature of science wonderful? Without science you wouldn't have clean water to drink, air conditioning in your home, a computer to make anti-science internet posts, or any of the other amenities you take for granted.

So Adam is the first human who evolved from chimp?? And Eve evolved from another chimp in the same time? Moreover, they mutants were conveniently able to have children? :!!!: Dont commit blasphemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Adam is the first human who evolved from chimp?? And Eve evolved from another chimp in the same time? Moreover, they mutants were conveniently able to have children? :!!!: Dont commit blasphemy.

who ever said anything about evolving from chimps? :!!!: dont commit trolling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Adam is the first human who evolved from chimp?? And Eve evolved from another chimp in the same time? Moreover, they mutants were conveniently able to have children? :!!!: Dont commit blasphemy.

I like what Richard Dawkins says about blasphemy...it's a victimless crime.

Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, a metaphor, or a parable. Have you ever considered that?

Humans did not evolve from chimps. They share a common ancestor from approximately 5-7 million years ago. Also, individuals do not evolve, populations evolve. You lack of understanding (willful ignorance, you don't want to understand) is astounding, but not uncommon. Many people don't want to understand things that might upset their world view.

Edited by Papples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken Miller directly refuted the statement within of Pandas and people. By demonstrating that certain proteins do hold functions, even without the assistance of others, in an example used by Behe himself.

Miller is refuting an argument that uses a bad example. Behe's example has been scientifically demonstration to be irreducibly complex. You need to address Behe's example directly. Why don't you give the specific example that Miller uses and quote it here?

The fact that simple pieces of a major structure can be used beneficially, even without the assistance of other proteins, demonstrates that it is functional even on its own. Which is the opposite of what Behe is saying.

Behe has always denied what you just said about him. Your's is a straw man argument too. You need to really address irreducible complexity and not a misunderstanding of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is improbable about mutations benefiting an organism? its been recorded to have happened, and observed.

We are talking about multiple improbable mutations. Meaning that each mutation is improbable on its own and then we need many of them to happen at the same time. You are right that there are mutations which do benefit organisms but they are not really improbable ones and they do not really add much information to the genome (they may even cause a loss of functioning in certain areas of the organism) and they cannot lead to the evolution of irreducibly complex structures. An example is the mutations that bacteria undergo when they show resistance to antibiotics. The binding sites do change due to the mutation but that is not the same as the creation of an irreducibly complex feature.

With that said, Behe is in support of what i have said about the fossil succession along with ERVs and phylogenetic trees, and im ok with that. As long as he understands that we humans have evolved from more primitive beings.

I wonder what he thinks about the Cambrian explosion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miller is refuting an argument that uses a bad example. Behe's example has been scientifically demonstration to be irreducibly complex. You need to address Behe's example directly. Why don't you give the specific example that Miller uses and quote it here?

Is it? may i see the research that demonstrates that it is irreducibly complex?

Behe has always denied what you just said about him. Your's is a straw man argument too. You need to really address irreducible complexity and not a misunderstanding of it.

No he has not, in the case of, for example blood clotting. The proteins do not need to be all together in order to benefit an organism.

On this note, i watched the video lecture that he has on irreducible complexity. And basically, what he was saying was, its not that the proteins cant function independently of one another. But the proteins themselves are composed of many traits, that they themselves would need to undergo a handful of designs in order to have their final form independently of other proteins.

If that is what your idea of irreducible complexity is, thats fine by me. But when you talk about, a handful of proteins, such as those in the example of blood clotting, those proteins do not all need to be together in order to perform beneficial things for organisms.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what he thinks about the Cambrian explosion.

I would assume he knows that the organisms of the Cambrian explosion are predated by other soft bodied organisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miller is refuting an argument that uses a bad example. Behe's example has been scientifically demonstration to be irreducibly complex. You need to address Behe's example directly. Why don't you give the specific example that Miller uses and quote it here?

Behe has always denied what you just said about him. Your's is a straw man argument too. You need to really address irreducible complexity and not a misunderstanding of it.

Behe has not scientifically demonstrated anything.

Irreducible complexity is just another argument from ignorance. The concept does not lead to new knowledge. On the contrary, the concept promotes giving up and just saying "God did it". You never learn anything doing that.

We are talking about multiple improbable mutations. Meaning that each mutation is improbable on its own and then we need many of them to happen at the same time. You are right that there are mutations which do benefit organisms but they are not really improbable ones and they do not really add much information to the genome (they may even cause a loss of functioning in certain areas of the organism) and they cannot lead to the evolution of irreducibly complex structures. An example is the mutations that bacteria undergo when they show resistance to antibiotics. The binding sites do change due to the mutation but that is not the same as the creation of an irreducibly complex feature.

I wonder what he thinks about the Cambrian explosion.

Improbable events happen all the time. In fact, every event in the universe is improbable. Everyone's lives is just a sequence of incredibly improbable events.

Edited by Papples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×