Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
iSilurian

The Theory Of Evolution

Recommended Posts

Here's the response from David Wynick, professor of Molecular Medicine at the University of Bristol:

"Their are isolated cases for both from the last century but in neither case did the human recipient live for more than a day or two. Neither are in current clinical use nor in clinical trials. I can't vouch for the veracity of all of the information in the link below but most of it tallies with what I know.

http://www.freewebs.com/xenotransplantation/infoonxenotransplantation.htm

Leaving aside the ethics of killing chimpanzees for this purpose their hearts are not big enough to support the human circulation longer term.

In contrast a adult pig heart is the right size and more importantly their genomes can be altered to be "humanised" to stop human rejection. That said the science of xenotransplantation is still a long way off human studies and many hurdles need to be overcome including the risk of transmission of pig viruses to humans which is a real concern."

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=6109

You can't expect Dawkins to know everything.

excellent, nice website too, i think ill add that to my favorites

i am wondering why Evolution Theory is discussed in philosophy forum rather than science forum?

fair question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

excellent, nice website too, i think ill add that to my favorites

fair question

I think what im going to do now is...make a new topic on, implications of the story of Adam and Eve, in regards to the theory of evolution.

Thats where the conversation usually gets hot. When you take information of the theory, and you use it to make predictions about other things.

As seen in this discussion, we can take implications drawn from one field of evolutionary study such as...paleontology, and we can effectively make accurate predictions in other independent fields using the theory such as comparative anatomy and genetics.

For example, using the theory of evolution, i should be able to predict the anatomical and genetic makeup of Adam, i should be able to tell roughly where Adam and Eve were located on earth and when they were located on earth based on mutation rates and and the analysis of Adam and Eves descendants. I should be able to determine what strata in the earth, their fossils, if they have them, would be located, and the strata in which all of their descendants are located. And, if i am not able to find these things, then theory of evolution is in trouble.

We can figure these things out with every other living thing, and if evolution is indeed true in the case of Adam and Eve, we should be able to apply the theory to them too.

But what happens when we attempt to draw conclusions on scripture, using the combined efforts of the various independent studies? What do we find, what do we determine from it, and what does it really mean?

to be continued...

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ERVs (endogenous retroviruses, just to help clear this up). Here is the summation of a discussion i had in the live chat.

so lets say, my DNA is made of 100 molecules, Ok so, Endogenous retroviruses are viruses, that...they attack and they leave little markers in our DNA, in our molecules. So lets say out of my 100 molecules, i get attacked by an endogenous retrovirus and it leaves its mark in between my 5th and 6th molecules out of 100. Ok so, after it attacks me in between my 5th and 6th molecule, now...when i have a child and that child has 100 molecules, and has an exact replica of my DNA, that child will have the same marker. Ok so...now, if i look at my childs DNA, where would i expect the find the marker?

An, exact replica would mean a marker in between the 5th and the 6th molecule, yes exactly, and if i have 2 children, the same applies, In reality our DNA is not always exactly identical to our parents( we may undergo mutations and such), but for sake of the discussion, it is fairly identical to our parents. And also of course our DNA isnt made of 100 molecules, its something more like 3.000,000,000 base pairs, but again, for the sake of discussion we can just say we have 100 molecules in a chain that make our DNA.

in reality, we find ERVs in our DNA that are in the same place as ERVs in chimps, and not just 1 or 2 ERVs, but hundreds,

Now, in addition lets say, my children have 1 ERV, and my children get attacked, ok so now my grandchildren have 2 ERVs, so now i can create a tree of relatedness based on the number of shared ERVs that all living things have, know what i mean? like i can make a tree and i can show that my grand children will be small branches (initially with 2 ERVs) and my children will be medium branches (initially with 1 ERV) and i will be the trunk of the tree (initially with 0 ERVs). Now i have a phylogentic tree for my family. And i can do this based on the number of ERVs that we share, and i can do the same thing with all mammals in the animal kingdom.

Now, for the actual reason i mentioned the phylogenetic tree. The tree that we can make from our ERVs alone, is identical to the trees we make with fossils, the trees we make with comparative anatomy, the trees we make with genetics, the trees we make with biogeography etc etc etc etc.

I do not think it is a coincidence that these trees are all identical for no reason :P.

ok so, please pardon my grammer for this post. Again its just a bunch of copying and pasting from the live chat, so bare with me :P. but i hope this helps with understanding what its about. Obviously, the material is a lot more detailed and in depth, and there are things i didnt mention specifically to keep it simple and easy to understand.

And here is a video, toward the end of the video, the person describes Endogenous retroviruses briefly, and it has some nice pictures to help with understanding. ok thanks everyone.

And this picture may help, with understanding the phylogenetic tree and relatedness of living things based on shared ERVs

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/vol80/issue10/images/medium/0802613005.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi%3Faction%3Dmsg%26f%3D9%26t%3D79%26m%3D1&usg=__-J4OpO_8fKIJqq9pTvcM0QgBI34=&h=251&w=440&sz=19&hl=en&start=20&zoom=1&tbnid=Ahkywb4W8OF_LM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=211&ei=u9jaTYyWPMPogQfotu1X&prev=/search%3Fq%3Derv%2Bphlogenetic%2Btree%2Band%2Binsertion%2Bpoint%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1275%26bih%3D640%26tbm%3Disch0%2C535&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=850&vpy=251&dur=3159&hovh=169&hovw=297&tx=154&ty=135&sqi=2&page=2&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:20&biw=1275&bih=640

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

about ERV .....

this is about a sequence of viral genome found in other living creature -mostly dysfunctional genome or defective-

The process though which this viral genome had been replicated and carried by non viral offspring is called Horizontal gene transfer

Horizontal gene transfer is : also lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism. By contrast, vertical transfer occurs when an organism receives genetic material from its ancestor, e.g., its parent or a species from which it has evolved. wiki

and let me quote whats been written in the section about the role of this transfer in evolution :

Horizontal gene transfer is a potential confounding factor in inferring phylogenetic trees based on the sequence of one gene.[36] For example, given two distantly related bacteria that have exchanged a gene a phylogenetic tree including those species will show them to be closely related because that gene is the same even though most other genes are dissimilar. For this reason it is often ideal to use other information to infer robust phylogenies such as the presence or absence of genes or, more commonly, to include as wide a range of genes for phylogenetic analysis as possible.

For example, the most common gene to be used for constructing phylogenetic relationships in prokaryotes is the 16s rRNA gene since its sequences tend to be conserved among members with close phylogenetic distances, but variable enough that differences can be measured. However, in recent years it has also been argued that 16s rRNA genes can also be horizontally transferred. Although this may be infrequent the validity of 16s rRNA-constructed phylogenetic trees must be reevaluated.[citation needed]

Biologist Johann Peter Gogarten suggests "the original metaphor of a tree no longer fits the data from recent genome research" therefore "biologists should use the metaphor of a mosaic to describe the different histories combined in individual genomes and use the metaphor of a net to visualize the rich exchange and cooperative effects of HGT among microbes."[12] There exist several methods to infer such phylogenetic networks.

Using single genes as phylogenetic markers, it is difficult to trace organismal phylogeny in the presence of horizontal gene transfer. Combining the simple coalescence model of cladogenesis with rare HGT horizontal gene transfer events suggest there was no single most recent common ancestor that contained all of the genes ancestral to those shared among the three domains of life. Each contemporary molecule has its own history and traces back to an individual molecule cenancestor. However, these molecular ancestors were likely to be present in different organisms at different times."[12]

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

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=10&pageid=105&pgtype=1

http://xcelab.net/rm/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/common-ancestery-AIC-test-paper.pdf

Edited by yassameen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

about ERV .....

this is about a sequence of viral genome found in other living creature -mostly dysfunctional genome or defective-

The process though which this viral genome had been replicated and carried by non viral offspring is called Horizontal gene transfer

Horizontal gene transfer is : also lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism. By contrast, vertical transfer occurs when an organism receives genetic material from its ancestor, e.g., its parent or a species from which it has evolved. wiki

and let me quote whats been written in the section about the role of this transfer in evolution :

Horizontal gene transfer is a potential confounding factor in inferring phylogenetic trees based on the sequence of one gene.[36] For example, given two distantly related bacteria that have exchanged a gene a phylogenetic tree including those species will show them to be closely related because that gene is the same even though most other genes are dissimilar. For this reason it is often ideal to use other information to infer robust phylogenies such as the presence or absence of genes or, more commonly, to include as wide a range of genes for phylogenetic analysis as possible.

For example, the most common gene to be used for constructing phylogenetic relationships in prokaryotes is the 16s rRNA gene since its sequences tend to be conserved among members with close phylogenetic distances, but variable enough that differences can be measured. However, in recent years it has also been argued that 16s rRNA genes can also be horizontally transferred. Although this may be infrequent the validity of 16s rRNA-constructed phylogenetic trees must be reevaluated.[citation needed]

Biologist Johann Peter Gogarten suggests "the original metaphor of a tree no longer fits the data from recent genome research" therefore "biologists should use the metaphor of a mosaic to describe the different histories combined in individual genomes and use the metaphor of a net to visualize the rich exchange and cooperative effects of HGT among microbes."[12] There exist several methods to infer such phylogenetic networks.

Using single genes as phylogenetic markers, it is difficult to trace organismal phylogeny in the presence of horizontal gene transfer. Combining the simple coalescence model of cladogenesis with rare HGT horizontal gene transfer events suggest there was no single most recent common ancestor that contained all of the genes ancestral to those shared among the three domains of life. Each contemporary molecule has its own history and traces back to an individual molecule cenancestor. However, these molecular ancestors were likely to be present in different organisms at different times."[12]

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

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=10&pageid=105&pgtype=1

http://xcelab.net/rm/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/common-ancestery-AIC-test-paper.pdf

This is talking about horizontal gene transfer among prokaryotes and other microbes, and common ancestors of ancient (and i do mean ancient) times. This information doesnt really hold association to ERVs in mammals and more specifically, primates. If you would like to relate the two somehow, i would be more than happy to assist you, but i would need to know what you are working at. Also, your sources and the sources of those sources, from what i saw, were made by evolutionary biologists who accept evolution.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is talking about horizontal gene transfer among prokaryotes and other microbes, and common ancestors of ancient (and i do mean ancient) times. This information doesnt really hold association to ERVs in mammals and more specifically, primates. If you would like to relate the two somehow, i would be more than happy to assist you, but i would need to know what you are working at. Also, your sources and the sources of those sources, from what i saw, were made by evolutionary biologists who accept evolution.

i didnt deny evolution , it is scientific theory

if every mutation is evolution then non should deny evolution but that's not what we are talking about are we? we are talking about the universal common ancestry , humans and chimps from same father and we are claiming that the mutations and the genome similarity in sequence is an evidence (evolution) of this kinship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didnt deny evolution , it is scientific theory

if every mutation is evolution then non should deny evolution but that's not what we are talking about are we? we are talking about the universal common ancestry , humans and chimps from same father and we are claiming that the mutations and the genome similarity in sequence is an evidence (evolution) of this kinship

Well, theres a difference between..."the universal ancestor" and the ancestor between us and primates. the universal ancestor was around a couple billion years ago, whereas apes and humans share theirs...maybe a few million years ago?

Theyre two very different fields of research, and...well, if you can relate the two by all means go ahead.

The articles, from what i understood, were referencing the ancient of ancients, and horizontal gene transfer....in...i guess the easiest way to describe it would just be to call it precambrian times.

evolution studies of these times, are far different from...post cambrian times. but...regardless. the article mentioned a "mosiac" instead of a "tree" of life, which is fine, but it really doesnt have anything to do with primates or mammals or even reptiles or amphibians etc. It also doesnt appear to be giving related info on ERVs, but rather appears to be non associated research.

Maybe there is something i am missing. feel free to explain.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didnt deny evolution , it is scientific theory

if every mutation is evolution then non should deny evolution but that's not what we are talking about are we? we are talking about the universal common ancestry , humans and chimps from same father and we are claiming that the mutations and the genome similarity in sequence is an evidence (evolution) of this kinship

ok, now that ive rested :P, let me try again.

Thanks for the post earlier, it was interesting reading it, ill probably read a bit more about it in a bit. Also, just as an edit for my last post, the common ancestor between chimps and other apes, wasnt a few million years old, i was thinking of some other hominid fossils. On that topic...

Theres a video though, it does a good job explaining hominids and their background a bit.

And a cool website with an, incomplete and yet still impressively built artificial tree of life.

http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952

this link starts it off at terrestrial vertebrates, so if youre interested in tree prior to that, ull have to back up.

Outside of that though, more on youre post yassameen. And dont get me wrong, i could very well be missing something, and if i am please let me know. But, the cladistics made based on archae pre cambrian extremophiles, i would assume is going to be far different from cladistics made around mammals and primates. And also...u know...it doest really hold relation to mammalian ERVs.

ok, thanks again.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just to continue to add on.

I know many people are familiar with the whole "fossil record". But i think, it would help to describe "geologic time", for better clarification of evolution in history.

Basically, and wikipedia does an ok job of ordering these.

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

If you look at that link, at the upper right of the page, you'll see, "Animals Temporal range: ediacaran - recent"

And above that, you'll find a color coded bar with a bunch of random letters in it.

This is the geologic time scale, and what it shows in the link is, Animals are known to have existed in the ediacaran (630 – 542 million years ago) to the present (today).

With that said, the geologic record, and the fossil succession are made by geologists.

To further explain. The earth is in layers, kind of like a cake. The layers on the bottom of the cake are the oldest layers (the bottom must form first, otherwise how can the top layers be on top if there is nothing below them). This is called superposition. And it, along with a number of other geologic principals and concepts, allow us to date the ages of the layers of earth.

Once we know the ages of the rocks, then we know that the bones within them are the age of the rock theyre found in. And so, the fossil succession is created and added to, every time a new fossil is dug up.

So now im gonna break it down.

The first appearance of complex animals occurred in the ediacaran (600 million years ago, or 600 mya).

Fish were present around the ordovician (450 mya)

amphibians (~ 360 mya)

reptiles (~ 300 mya)

mammals (~ 200)

birds (~150)

and, lets say for example...fish and amphibians. everyone knows what a fish is, and amphibians are animals spend part of their life in water and part on land. Ok so, if evolution were true, if fish are in 450 mya strata and amphibians are in 400 mya strata, we would expect to find...part fish + part amphibian animals in between 450-370 million year old rocks. And we do,

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

And so, this is basically the order of the fossil record. Ill add more to this soon. And of course this is a really really basic explanation, but i think its important to note the order of fossils in the earth. If for example, a bird fossil could be found in 500 million year old rocks, evolution would be dissproven (assuming they were genuine and werent placed there artificially). And again, the phylogenetic tree made from this succession matches other trees.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one last thing to add for now, i think its pretty interesting, so ill take a hot second to mention it. About the first complex life forms that appeared during the ediacaran, and the following animals of the cambrian explosion, these animals, being the first animals to be recognized in the fossil record, are recognized for certain reasons.

The very first organisms essentially were part of a major evolutionary arms race. It is the time in which the first exoskeletons and shells came about, along with the first compound eyes with calcite lenses. Major predators appeared etc.. These animals, being the first to really excell in evolution, had many wild and crazy body structures which i think is a fine indication of how evolution is not necessarily a ladder, but rather works in "random walks" or in, potentially unpredictable ways, when there is little natural pressure on them.

Also, i know this is a shia chat and all, so i think for those of you who hold interest in respective religions, perhaps this can be something to reflect on.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cambrian+exlosion&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1270&bih=633

heres a link to some pictures.

And some things to search in google...the ediacara biota and the cambrian explosion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now ill ask you, are they published in journals? Have you actually read any of them? And if so, which one would you like to discuss?

Basically, what i was saying is, from earlier, if you want to discuss the matter, please use peer reviewed research. So, if you have read them, and you have the publication and would like to discuss and/or debate, im here.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now ill ask you, are they published in journals? Have you actually read any of them? And if so, which one would you like to discuss?

Basically, what i was saying is, from earlier, if you want to discuss the matter, please use peer reviewed research. So, if you have read them, and you have the publication and would like to discuss and/or debate, im here.

If you click on the links, they do mention the names of the journals that they are published in. I posted that link just to let people know that there are peer-reviewed published papers which tend to favour the legitimacy of ID (some have been written by ID theorists).

BTW I don't see why they have to be published in journals for you to accept them. If they make a good point then they are worth considering.

Unfortunately I personally wont be able to discuss much for the next few weeks. I am just too busy. Hopefully I will join in the discussion in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you click on the links, they do mention the names of the journals that they are published in. I posted that link just to let people know that there are peer-reviewed published papers which tend to favour the legitimacy of ID (some have been written by ID theorists).

BTW I don't see why they have to be published in journals for you to accept them. If they make a good point then they are worth considering.

Unfortunately I personally wont be able to discuss much for the next few weeks. I am just too busy. Hopefully I will join in the discussion in the future.

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.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...