This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.� This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
Are these scientists all frauds?
Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?
Are they all being dishonest?
Is their view on the matter unscientific?
Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?
Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?
Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?
Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?
Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?
Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?
Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?
Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?
And btw, most of behe's arguments have been debunked. I actually addressed him specifically in another thread...
When I asked if you could send link. You sent me to someones blog who only understood half of Behe's analogy and who didn't think cause and effect was relevant to understand Big bang cosmology. When I looked at the threads, (as per your words) I saw five comments. So lets go over them.
I doubt if you're ABDUL A. KHAN because he actually believes cause and effect are also relevant to big bang cosmology. I don't think you are JohnADavison who says that Behe is a fine intellect. I don't think your Jeff who brags that the Scopes trial was just down the road from his house. The only comment on thread thats left is from beajerry who says…. That's right!
All hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster for causing the big bang!
Through process of elimination I can only assume it is you. I don't mean to sound obtuse, but really??
What I find so interesting is that you did not even bother to read my earlier threads where I mentioned that Eugenie Scott actually agrees that irreducible complexity is a real scientific component of intelligent design. The real kicker here is that she actually says this in the same interview that you sent me.
I specifically ask you to stick to one subject at a time and you bombard me with a bunch of anti ID youtube videos. You could not even refute the BF in your own words and sent me a video with a soundtrack to Boston. Which by the way is one of my favorite bands. In fact I just posted a video of me playing along with backing tracks to More than a Feeling. So I guess thanks.
I already cited Millers argument and already mentioned the TTSS analogy concerning bacterial flagellum so I don't know why you sent video of the same. If you had the ability to defend it in your own words you would have.
You sent article below
Reducible Crosslinks in Hydroxylysine-Deficient Collagens of a Heritable
Disorder of Connective Tissue
You saw the word reducible in the title and thought it refuted or even had anything to do with Irreducible complexity. I can assure you it doesn't.
You also cited this article below..
Toward complex matter: Supramolecular chemistry
and self-organization
Jean-Marie Lehn* What are the steps and the
processes that lead from the elementary
particle to the thinking organism, the
(present!) entity of highest complexity
At the beginning it states.....
This essay therefore
will not be extensively documented (numerous reviews and books are available) but
rather outline some conjectures for the future, mainly based on, illustrated by, and
extrapolated from work performed in the
author’s laboratories
The writer admits that this article is based on conjecture and kudos to him for doing so. I can respect that.
He goes on to say...
The goal is to progressively
discover, understand, and implement the
rules that govern its evolution from inanimate to animate and beyond, to ultimately
acquire the ability to create new forms of
complex matter.
More kudos to writer in admitting the goal is to discover and understand, and personally I hope we one day reach that goal.
Again, I kindly asked you to stick to one subject at a time.
I'm already aware of many of these videos. Your not telling me anything new and If you cannot defend any of this in your own words then please don't bother sending me volleys of data. Remember quality is more important, and it would be more appreciated than quantity.
Since you pointed to a video about the flagellum, and I.R.
How about one where the concept of I.R. is debunked?
[youtube][/youtube]
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
When I asked if you could send link. You sent me to someones blog who only understood half of Behe's analogy and who didn't think cause and effect was relevant to understand Big bang cosmology. When I looked at the threads, (as per your words) I saw five comments. So lets go over them.
Behe is not a Cosmologist, nor does he hold a PHD in this field of science. Behe understanding of this field is severely lacking and it showed. Hence, you are attempting to take an analogy from someone pretending to even know what they are talking about.. Hence, I suggest Behe try sticking to Biotech and leave the Cosmology to those whom are actually educated on the subject and know something about the physics involved.
I doubt if you're ABDUL A. KHAN because he actually believes cause and effect are also relevant to big bang cosmology.
Trying to mold KHAN into your argument is not going to make Behe's argument any less ignorant of the subject. And trying to use a man's work from 1936 as entirely applicable to modern understanding of physics or even particle physics is quite silly.. Yes he contributed greatly to what we know today, but I find it interesting that almost all Creationists rely almost entirely on science understanding from almost 100+ years ago while ignoring all that which has been learned since.
I don't think you are JohnADavison who says that Behe is a fine intellect.
John A Davison is a self-admitted fraud btw, or a well known crank.. Posting his opinion is worthless, and for you to seriously attempt to make an appeal to authority like that is rather interesting. Nor is it going to make Behe any less wrong... And John A Davison only had a PHD in zoology.. Lets take these two papers:
He's claiming, among other things, that all evolutionarily useful information was developed before the invention of sex. For those who don't know, he's an elderly ex-physiologist from Vermont who was forced into retirement sometime in the 80's for teaching his "PEH" theory in school instead of university-approved coursework texts. As a result, he spends his free time spamming message boards with his weird pseudocreationist arguments, or blogging about his hatred of all things liberalish and Obama-esque. Somewhere in there, he also ran for governor of Vermont, too. Here he is, whining about how no one listens to him:
Well, when your science is utter junk, why should anyone listen? Especially when it's pseudoscience.. hence he makes such bad arguments such as:
"Darwin was dead wrong about the time course of evolution just as he was about everything else. Every evolutionary event was instantaneous, requiring only the time it takes for a single cytogenetic event to take place. Such events took place many times over millions of years, each one producing in a single step a new taxonomic category whether species, Genus, Order, Class or Phylum. That is why not a single gradual transformation can be found in the fossil record. Such transformations never took place."
And then you get him trying to claim the following with his own idea on evolution:
(“Anti-biotic resistance is not evolution because it is reversible. No evolutionary event has ever been reversed. Besides evolution isn't even going on any more�).
In fact, his ideas are mostly a regurgitation of an old creationist ideas, and his references are usually to papers from the 1940s and earlier. A clear case of delusions of grandeur; his is apparently “the most important battle in the history of mankind�. Conservapedia seems to like him (as does Dembski), though the semi-creationist, bottom-tier journal that actually published his stuff apparently wants nothing more to do with him (he has completely lost it, as can be seen from this interview).
And it Gets worse:
Davison is actually legendary for his Internet trolling (“you have a John Davison infection� has become a diagnosis for especially newly started, science oriented blogs that draw the attention of Davison or his acolytes) and he is banned from several Science-oriented blogs, including Panda’s Thumb. He is known for setting up multiple blogs himself; each one consisting of a single post, inviting comments. Most of the comments are from himself, however. When he feels like that blog is "full", starts another one.
And you wonder why he's considered a crackpot? And you are using him as a source? Using him to say Behe's is fine intellect isn't exactly impressive, nor is it note worthy as such things are irrelevant.. Hence we don't care what he has to say about Behe
I don't think your Jeff who brags that the Scopes trial was just down the road from his house. The only comment on thread thats left is from beajerry who says…. That's right!
And now you are just ranting because you can't actually deal with the fact you are using discredited sources, psuedoscience, and people who try to pretend to know what they are talking about in fields they have no education in, or PHD's in.
All hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster for causing the big bang!
No such claim is made in the field of science. Please stop appealing to emotion. Btw, energy can do a lot of things..Like make snowflakes, stars, black holes, and even Universes... Now where does science claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster, midge magic elves, or pixie fairies ever made the Universe. In fact, your idea of GOD DONE IT is about as coherent as the claim that a pixie fairy done it.. None of which rest in any sort of real scientific basis or relevance.
Through process of elimination I can only assume it is you. I don't mean to sound obtuse, but really??
Hey, since you are on the subject of cause and effect, I would please appreciate a response on why consciousness can't exist without cause. Hence, lets work on that process of elimination here.. And why are you not properly addressing my posts?
What I find so interesting is that you did not even bother to read my earlier threads where I mentioned that Eugenie Scott actually agrees that irreducible complexity is a real scientific component of intelligent design. The real kicker here is that she actually says this in the same interview that you sent me.
Yes, she says it's a component of those whom believe in intelligent design. She however does not agree with it. I am curious why you are trying to turn something she said into something having to do with her scientific position.. You seem to not understand her:
I specifically ask you to stick to one subject at a time and you bombard me with a bunch of anti ID youtube videos.
You sound like a FLat Earther who will label anything against his or her position as propaganda, and a conspiracy while putting it into an emotional appeal about how it's anti-Flat Earth, or in your case anti-ID while being entirely un-able to support one's self with anything worthy of consideration. Playing a victim is a nice deflection attempt.. Nor have you addressed any thing I've stated. So how about you stick to the science...
I already cited Millers argument and already mentioned the TTSS analogy concerning bacterial flagellum so I don't know why you sent video of the same. If you had the ability to defend it in your own words you would have.
That's great and what have you provided in terms of material? nothing..
You saw the word reducible in the title and thought it refuted or even had anything to do with Irreducible complexity. I can assure you it doesn't.
It does have to do with reducibility of such things. Do explain how it doesn't..
At the beginning it states..... The writer admits that this article is based on conjecture and kudos to him for doing so. I can respect that.
I am fully aware of it.. However have you bothered to read it and understand how it's very applicable to this discussion?
The goal is to progressively
discover, understand, and implement the
rules that govern its evolution from inanimate to animate and beyond, to ultimately
acquire the ability to create new forms of
complex matter.
Exactly, and we don't have a problem with this...
More kudos to writer in admitting the goal is to discover and understand, and personally I hope we one day reach that goal.
Yes, it's called intellectual honesty and integrity.. Something Behe and others might want to work on. However, you have not properly addressed my post, all you are doing is trying cherry pick and avoid having to deal with it.. Hence, you literally skipped over 90 percent of my post.. I wonder why that is?
I'm already aware of many of these videos. Your not telling me anything new and If you cannot defend any of this in your own words then please don't bother sending me volleys of data. Remember quality is more important, and it would be more appreciated than quantity.
You might want to work on the quality of your sources, and data before coming to me about that issue.
You obviously didn't read the whole thread which seems to be a bad habit you have.
In the previous thread I gave link to Scott admitting that IR was a scientific component of ID. A minute later, and she is bashing it. First off she is lying, as I said before, she has been sued for lying in the past. What she is trying to do is use Millers argument. Behe is speaking of one particular type of bacterial flagellum where if even one part is removed it will not function because all parts have to be in place before it can be functional, therefore it is irreducibly complex. Remember in the first part of link I cited in where she admits this as "a valid scientific component"? To date no one has been able to remove one part of the BF and demonstrate that it could still function.
Again Miller has also falsely stated that you can remove 30- 40 parts of the BF and still have a functioning TTSS which is a completely different system. Theres one big problem concerning his statement, and that is he has never been able to do it. We have the technology to knock out the proteins and to verify his assertion. The question is why wouldn't he? If he did, this would falsify IC. Another problem is that all evidence leads to the BF being ancestral to the TTSS and in order for Millers argument to be even theoretically sound the TTSS would have to be ancestral or the whole argument falls apart and Miller knows this and this is why he always skirts the issue.
Ill ask of you the same. Please do not cite anything that you cannot explain in your own words.
Jacklelantern I did notice a couple of academic of citations and I will respond this one time, even after I asked for one example at a time which you did not honor.
You cited
The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine PNAS 2009 106 (37) 15791-15795; published ahead of print August 26, 2009, doi:10.1073/pnas.0908264106
The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine...The challenge of irreducible complexity . Nat Hist 111 : 74 . 8 Miller...Supporting Information (PDF) The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine...
One thing that many scholars have told me, is to beware of titles. When grant money is involved, grand claims can be made of them. Unfortunately in order for it to pass peer review the substance still has to meet a certain criteria. Example.....
Before the article cited above goes on to speculate on as to how they think machines like the BF came to evolve through a Darwinian process, (and take note that you said we were way past neo Darwinism) but again I digress. Again, before it goes on to speculate, it says this........
How these molecular
machines evolved is a fundamental question.
Let me repeat that for you
How these molecular
machines evolved is a fundamental question
Another reference was cited in a (journal of algebra) which only featured an abstract that mentioned nothing of the bacterial flagellum.
You also cited
Evolution Of Irreducible Complexity Explained
April 12, 2006
Before it goes on to do the same as other article cited above, it also starts off by saying this........
How natural selection can drive the evolution of complex molecular systems – those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts--has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that such systems are "irreducibly complex" and thus incompatible with gradual evolution by natural selection.
let me repeat again....
"those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts--has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology"
Before it says the above statement, it says this, and keep your ears open......
Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently "irreducibly complex" molecular system.
First off, it mentions nothing of the bacterial flagellum concerning this statement. I.e. they have not actually reconstructed the BF that Behe refers too, and secondly, I can only assume that the reason why original study was not cited is because like many other claims in many other journals you will find, that when the term "reconstructed" is used, then this means an intelligent agent was selecting, directing and manipulating the experiment. Hence the need for an intelligent agent. If you can provide original paper, that would be fine.
Again to summarize and according to your own citations....
How these molecular
machines evolved is a fundamental question.
In the previous thread I gave link to Scott admitting that IR was a scientific component of ID.
Creation science isn't science.. The argument is that IR is a component of creationist pseudoscience, not academic science... She's not admitting anything, and you seriously grasping at straws, or what I would consider quote mining.
A minute later, and she is bashing it.
Of course, it's because it's been repeatedly debunked.. No point of going any further with it..
First off she is lying, as I said before, she has been sued for lying in the past.
Lying about what? And sued by whom might I ask? Creationists?
What she is trying to do is use Millers argument. Behe is speaking of one particular type of bacterial flagellum where if even one part is removed it will not function because all parts have to be in place before it can be functional, therefore it is irreducibly complex.
Wrong.. Behe's example was debunked and his supposed paper he said was being sent for review never got passed peer review.. You're wasting out time here..
Remember in the first part of link I cited in where she admits this as "a valid scientific component"?
She never said it was a valid scientific component other than the subject is addressed in actual academic science. Has nothing to do with magically validating IR as a fact, or something having to do with ID..
To date no one has been able to remove one part of the BF and demonstrate that it could still function.
Actually they have.. Each component has it's own functionality even as a separate component.. Behe's dishonestly tries to state that the functionality as a whole doesn't function if you remove parts and components.. It's bad science and dishonest. It's been literally ripped to shreds in the academic science community. Hence, it has no barring in reality other than reality itself can't be reduced to nothing. That's about as far as IR goes..
Again Miller has also falsely stated that you can remove 30- 40 parts of the BF and still have a functioning TTSS which is a completely different system.
Wrong!
Theres one big problem concerning his statement, and that is he has never been able to do it.
And here is where you completely failed to understand what's being talked about:
body of the flagella is similar in a number of respects to the Type III secretion system, a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs use to inject toxins into living eukaryotic cells. The needle’s base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work. Hence, Kenneth Miller concludes that, “The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own.�
The claim is not the flagellum will work as was with missing proteins..The functionality reduces and that functionality remains in some form or another. and it's why the majority of the argument against it rests in claiming there is no natural mechanisms, or that the probability of such complexity is to improbable and would require ID... And yet, no scientific peer reviewed journal exists establishing this creationist assertion.. I can even give 1 mechanism.. It's called electromagnetism and understand how that relates to self-organizing systems, self-organizing biochemical cycles, protein folding, and how it relates to evolution in general. Creationists assume ID, they don't actually scientifically establish it as a viable option when they literally require the need to play the GOD of the Gaps as some sort of scientific methodology to which makes no effort to disprove their assumed premises in accordance to the scientific method.
We have the technology to knock out the proteins and to verify his assertion. The question is why wouldn't he? If he did, this would falsify IC. Another problem is that all evidence leads to the BF being ancestral to the TTSS and in order for Millers argument to be even theoretically sound the TTSS would have to be ancestral or the whole argument falls apart and Miller knows this and this is why he always skirts the issue.
Knocking out the proteins will only prove the premise of functionality with the missing proteins.. If you want to prove it can evolve back into a flagellum with all the missing proteins, or back to it's prior form will be unlikely. Why? well, for 2 reasons:
1) Chaos theory.. This is the biggest of the issues with this. Hence, evolution doesn't state something will happen or evolve in a certain order. Hence the variables are too great to predict and it could evolve into something else.. This is where creationists really don't understand evolution, or the problems with replicating an evolutionary process since that would require everything to happen as it did the first time and under the exact same conditions at every time frame. This is not an argument for ID, but rather a fact of nature and reality..It would be like trying to stir milk in a cup of coffee and expecting to replicate it in another cup of coffee in exact order in relation to each atoms momentum, position, and path.. It would be like trying to form two identical snowflakes even while using the same mechanisms that form snowflakes.
2) Time scale for it to re-evolve...
The probability is that it could happen in some similar way even if it's not identical, but the point is that it could happen and not that it could never.
Ill ask of you the same. Please do not cite anything that you cannot explain in your own words.
Here, this explains the principle rather well:
This sentence consists of words to which consist of letters to which consist of digital binary code, to which consists of atoms to which consists of energy..... Is it reducible from there, or is the fact that irreducibility can only be resolved by solving infinite regress and establishing a state in which can no longer be reduced.?. IE energy by all empirical means is simply energy. And energy does all the work. But wait, you will claim I typed that sentence, and that man made that computer I used, and made the internet ect.. Well, I agree.. However, that's not an issue or the problem because what really kills the ID argument is that consciousness can't actually suffice to solve this IR problem, and requires pretty much all the same or similar mechanisms that drive evolution to function and operate.. The cognitive motor to which gives rise to an aware state or the possibility of a fully conscious state is highly complex and can not exist without cause...
Now I've noticed that you haven't addressed my entire post on this subject concerning irreducibility and why it's wrong when concerning the tenets of evolution. The complexity of a flagellum is not anywhere near what is required to support a cognitive system.. So we have a problem here that you need to address.. Hence, take out all the senses and means to acquire information of one's self and environment, we can reduce consciousness to a state in complete lacking there of.. And these sensory systems alone would be highly complex, not to mention the complexity of the functionality of these sensory systems. It's even more painfully obvious when we start dealing with artificial intelligence, or when you study how the brain develops in embryology to which eventually makes the motor system capable of cognitive functionality. This being the brain for course. Even new born babies are not fully conscious of themselves or their environment and require development of this before becoming independently functional or fully functional.. And this doesn't even go into the complexity of things that are not conscious and why those things are examples of why ID isn't a viable argument of origins.. Plants and basic reactionary systems require far less cause and complexity than that of those of cognitive systems.
Hence, I don't think you were listening as to why IR is pretty much debunked in regards to ID in terms of academic science. Especially in dealing with information science and information theory. Creationists never want to discuss the complexity of cognitive systems. They just like to say "Oh, it's simple" and move on ignoring the problems with that statement. So how do creationists explain the complexity of cognitive systems?
BTW... there are other people doing research on molecular machines:
What's worse is that Behe responded by saying that you still require a base and thus ID is somehow vindicated by his goal post moving.. And yet, we can do that to and tell Behe that ID can't exist without a base we call existence. So is Behe going to argue that reality itself (existence) some how needs ID? And how does one design and created existence from a position lacking there of, or lacking the need of? Yeah, his arguments are terrible to say the least.
Last edited by TheJackelantern on Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
One thing that many scholars have told me, is to beware of titles. When grant money is involved, grand claims can be made of them. Unfortunately in order for it to pass peer review the substance still has to meet a certain criteria. Example...
One thing reason has made me realize, beware of people postulating a need for a baseless conspiracy theory.
Another reference was cited in a (journal of algebra) which only featured an abstract that mentioned nothing of the bacterial flagellum.
Hold on a second, what made you think it was supposed to? You clearly don't understand the premise of this discussion do you?
How natural selection can drive the evolution of complex molecular systems – those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts--has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that such systems are "irreducibly complex" and thus incompatible with gradual evolution by natural selection.
And you clearly failed to realize that natural selection is not the only mechanisms involved in evolution.. Good to see you're not paying attention.. Let us know when you catch up to the 21st century.
First off, it mentions nothing of the bacterial flagellum concerning this statement. I.e. they have not actually reconstructed the BF that Behe refers too, and secondly, I can only assume that the reason why original study was not cited is because like many other claims in many other journals you will find, that when the term "reconstructed" is used, then this means an intelligent agent was selecting, directing and manipulating the experiment. Hence the need for an intelligent agent. If you can provide original paper, that would be fine.
Firstly the cited paper isn't supposed to address flagellum... secondly you are making assumptions and trying to inject "ID" in a paper that does not say ID is needed.. The term reconstructed does not mean there must be a "ID" source, or that any sort of intelligence was required for selecting.. Even a brainless plant can move in a 3D environment and literally up root itself and get out of the shade.. Your argument is as bad as rejecting the science behind how snow flakes form and claiming they are all hand crafted because they appear to be designed, or needing it.. And in case you don't know what the definition of quote mining is, you can find it here:
Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint.[1] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.
And no surprise to the fact you just did exactly that.. Basically, you are grasping desperately at straws to avoid addressing the problem with your IR position.. And it gets worse for you:
They simply assume that natural selection cannot act to preserve the point mutations until they achieve a certain state at which they have an impact on the phenotype. This by which means they are using a non-Darwinian model, as pointed out by Michael Lynch:
Which raises an additional question: why did Protein Science (the journal where Behe & Snoke appeared), a journal on protein structure and chemistry, publish a paper on population genetics? Can you answer that for me??? Because it seems quite obvious that Behe has no argument what-so-ever. And it get's worse when we go into other fields such as gene duplication such as the following:
Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr
Article first published online: 22 DEC 2010
And I have posted extensively on gene duplication earlier.. And I can even go into protein folding and destroy his argument of irreducible complexity in something like prions:
We can also go here under my evolution thread concerning Prions to understand more of what material-physical information is or means: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=13429
We can prove evolution in non-living molecules as We can in living molecules. Prions are non-living molecules that can evolve and adapt to their environment. JuÂpiÂter, Fla discovered that these Prions can develop many different kinds of mutations that help prions develop defenses to withstand against threats. Even viruses that are considered non-living but active matter that can also evolve. However, viruses have a commonality with life known as DNA, and Prions do not. Prions consist of proteins that are composed of amino acids. The mutations are different folding arrangements of the protein molecules that achieve different material physical/informational characteristics much like that of DNA.. These foldÂing arrangements play an evÂoÂluÂtionÂary role in priÂons. This follows the same premise behind the driving force commonly found in cases of co-evolution and mutualism. The fact that non-life or non-living active matter evolves, also means that life evolves. This shows the deeper communicative connection between living active matter, non-living active matter, inactive matter, and environment interactions..
* Furthermore, we can get even deeper into evolution by linking plant and animal into one little critter known as the Green Sea Slug. Here we can observe an example of the deeper communicative process of evolution!. The Green Sea slug can actually steal photosynthesizing organelles and genes from algae. This little slug can produce it's own chlorophyll. Also, Elysia and its genetic kleptomania is yet another example of animals undergoing the sort of horizontal gene transfer that is so commonplace in bacteria to where we can see how the flow of information is a material physical process.
You obviously didn't read the whole thread which seems to be a bad habit you have.
In the previous thread I gave link to Scott admitting that IR was a scientific component of ID. A minute later, and she is bashing it. First off she is lying, as I said before, she has been sued for lying in the past. What she is trying to do is use Millers argument. Behe is speaking of one particular type of bacterial flagellum where if even one part is removed it will not function because all parts have to be in place before it can be functional, therefore it is irreducibly complex. Remember in the first part of link I cited in where she admits this as "a valid scientific component"? To date no one has been able to remove one part of the BF and demonstrate that it could still function.
Again Miller has also falsely stated that you can remove 30- 40 parts of the BF and still have a functioning TTSS which is a completely different system. Theres one big problem concerning his statement, and that is he has never been able to do it. We have the technology to knock out the proteins and to verify his assertion. The question is why wouldn't he? If he did, this would falsify IC. Another problem is that all evidence leads to the BF being ancestral to the TTSS and in order for Millers argument to be even theoretically sound the TTSS would have to be ancestral or the whole argument falls apart and Miller knows this and this is why he always skirts the issue.
Ill ask of you the same. Please do not cite anything that you cannot explain in your own words.
You made some very strong statements. Prove that Miller lied, Show that not only did she get sued (anybody can get sued), but that the case went to trial. Prove it.
Stop doing ad hominine attacks and back up your claims.
Show she lied.. Give a peer reviewed journal that showed she lied. You make aweful big claims.. but I don't see you backing those up.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
and it's why the majority of the argument against it rests in claiming there is no natural mechanisms, or that the probability of such complexity is to improbable and would require ID... And yet, no scientific peer reviewed journal exists establishing this creationist assertion..
What is established in science are hypothesis, theorems and principles, and thats what peer review is for. Furthermore, so far they have established enough to increase their articles in even more peer review journals in the last few years. I even cited a peer review journal proposing that based on a lack of empirical evidence that physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life as well as encoded genetic information among other things. Are your going to pretend that these peer review articles don't exist?
Even Talk Origin admits that ID peer review articles exist and even post them on there cite. Of course it is 7 years out of date and more peer review has been published since then yet you continue to deny it. Your head is buried pretty deep. Even Eugenie Scott director of the NCSE and the women who's video you sent me admits this in writing. If the Journal Life a highly respected Journal is not good enough for you, then how about The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.? Would that be up to your standards? You could have said they….yes they exist, but that you don't agree with what they say. Or you can provide empirical evidence to refute these propositions, which you have failed to do and instead show me articles that admit in spite of their own propositions that these problems remains unsolved.
She never said it was a valid scientific component other than the subject is addressed in actual academic science.
Thats not what she said. And take time to listen to yourself. If a subject gets addresses by academic science and especially since you have sent studies that try to debunk IC, it only shows that it is a valid scientific component.
Creation science isn't science.. The argument is that IR is a component of creationist pseudoscience, not academic science... She's not admitting anything, and you seriously grasping at straws, or what I would consider quote mining.
I gave you link where Scott says in her own words that IC is a valid scientific component and in the same interview session that you gave link to. In fact even in your video, she admits IC exist, and then goes on to lie and say….. the problem is that ID'ers want to argue that "there is a whole class of phenomena that we just take off the table for science to explain"
If anything, Behe has been trying to get this in the scientific literature on the table so that science can work these issues out once an for all. I'm not quoting anyone out of context and in fact I have pointed out her contradictions
Your own citations mention IC. In Behe's article with Snokes the reviewers asked him to take out the words intelligent design even though this is the premise of his work. It seems when anyone ever publishes anything that looks like Intelligent design the Scotts, the Jerry Coyne's and PZ Myers pick up there pitch forks and either call for a bloodletting or boycotts, and without even reading the papers. The fact that fifty have been published so far in this climate of hostility is a small miracle.
I have given you every opportunity to provide proof that IC has been debunked and your own citation claim that issue remains un resolved.
I find it odd that so many who are trying to falsify IC are the same people who claim it to be junk science and therefore non falsifiable.
You still have not provided any evidence against it that is not based on speculation and your own citation says the issue is still unresolved.
to date no one has been able to remove one part of the BF and demonstrate that it could still function.
Actually they have.. Each component has it's own functionality even as a separate component.. Behe's dishonestly tries to state that the functionality as a whole doesn't function if you remove parts and components.. It's bad science and dishonest. It's been literally ripped to shreds in the academic science community. Hence, it has no barring in reality other than reality itself can't be reduced to nothing. That's about as far as IR goes..
I think you mean IC and I have given you every opportunity to provide study that they have removed parts of the bacterial flagellum that Behe cites and it still functions. I'm not asking for claims which there are many of, but the actual empirical study. Please provide this. I guarantee you wont find it.
body of the flagella is similar in a number of respects to the Type III secretion system, a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs use to inject toxins into living eukaryotic cells. The needle’s base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work. Hence, Kenneth Miller concludes that,“The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own.�
When did your citation above say that Miller removed any parts of the BF? please show me.
Knocking out the proteins will only prove the premise of functionality with the missing proteins.. If you want to prove it can evolve back into a flagellum with all the missing proteins, or back to it's prior form will be unlikely.
The claim is not the flagellum will work as was with missing proteins..The functionality reduces and that functionality remains in some form or another.
Forget about the TTSS evolving back to a BF. Lets just deal with Millers claim that if you remove forty or so proteins from the BF then you wind up with the TTSS. This is false and misleading and he says this 4 minutes into his video loud and clear. Again those were his words. Yet at the same time Miller admits that if you just remove one part the BF wont function, and thats why his claims are so contradictory. You have failed to show me anywhere in the literature where an empirical study was done truncating even one part of the BF and still have it be functional.
body of the flagella is similar in a number of respects to the Type III secretion system, a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs use to inject toxins into living eukaryotic cells. The needle’s base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work. Hence, Kenneth Miller concludes that,“The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own.�
I have repeatedly spoken of the TTSS /Type III secretion system. You don't even seem to understand your own citation and I already explained this a couple of threads ago. Why cant you read man? I'll explain again since you don't seem to get it. Your own citation actually has it backwards and is not even a good analogy.
Let me at least give some justice to Millers argument even if I disagree with him.
Miller claims that because the TTSS has ten or so proteins in common with the BF that therefore the BF must have started as TTSS system and then evolved into the BF. Remember he used the word precursor to the BF and he used the TTSS as an example therefore stating that it had a previous function therefore falsifying IC. That is his claim and you cited the video.
First off, it's pure speculation. The ten remaining proteins that Miller speaks of are not the same. Thats right. Not the same. They are homologous, meaning similar but not the same, and when pushed, even he admitted this fact, and a fact I might add he constantly omits. Again I repeat, Miller himself has admitted that if you remove even one part of the BF, it will not function, yet at the same time he has mislead people into thinking that if you remove 40 parts that you end up with the TTSS and this is four minutes into the video you sent me. Once more I say the problem is that he nor anyone else has ever been able to remove 40 protein/parts from the BF and end up with anything that functions period much less anything resembling a TTSS. He also doesn't mention and excluded the 20 other proteins that are not in common with the BF. Furthermore, as I said before most evidence seems to point the BF being ancestral but even if wasn't, Millers case is still based on unproved speculation. He has also never been able to empirically demonstrate on how you get to a TTSS to a BF by any Darwinian mechanism.
Yes, she says it's a component of those whom believe in intelligent design.
False, this is what she actually says and I quote "
this arguably the only real scientific component of intelligent design"
even though she goes on to ridicule the idea she admits that
"it is true by definition"
so you see it is not a made up construct. It is you who is misquoting her Here see it again She also tries to redefine IC by saying that you have to take many parts before it wont work. This is a lie. You only need to remove one and this is why she offers no citation or any body of work to support it.[/quote]
Yes, she says it's a component of those whom believe in intelligent design.
False, this is what she actually says and I quote "
this arguably the only real scientific component of intelligent design"
even though she goes on to ridicule the idea she admits that
"it is true by definition"
so you see it is not a made up construct. It is you who is misquoting her Here see it again She also tries to redefine IC by saying that you have to take many parts before it wont work. This is a lie. You only need to remove one and this is why she offers no citation or any body of work to support it.
[/quote]
However, just because you are concentrating on what you perceive to be Dr Scott's problems with language, doesn't mean I.R. is valid. There are two specific ways that I.R. systems can evolve, without the intervention of an 'intelligent designer'. One is the use of scaffolding, where teh 'supporting structure' was removed later. The other is by co opting parts from other functions for a new unique function.
This demonstrates, with a repeatable experiment, the evolution of a 'irreducibly complex' system.
The whole 'i.r.' phenomena , and it's solution was actually predicted and resolved by H.J Mueuller in 1918.. .. which predates Behe's poor argument by a number of decades. Behe is certainly not cutting edge in his mistakes.
I don't know why you are still beating the dead horse of 'irreducibly complexity' as evidence for I.D. at all.
The fact that the 'Discovery Institute' still uses it, in addition to the various other issues with D.I, such as the 'wedge' document, and the fact their rather silly 'a scientific Dissent from Darwinism' shows a high level of religious motivation (i mean, so many young earth creationists, even when just examining the people from Britain) makes the Discovery Institute corrupted as a source.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
