Slashdot Mirror

If I want to know the finer points of theology, I'll ask a member of the clergy. If I want to know the finer points of biology, I'll ask a biologist.

It was this http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Irreducible complexity. They were referencing rotary motors on bacteria, and the creationist said "take away one part, and it will not work." This could not have evolved, because so many things would have had to come together by chance at the exact same time.

Dawkins used the same Chewbacca defence that's on the linked page. Basically, he said "creationists say it doesn't work if you take away only one part. We can show we can take away 15 (or so) and it works as this other mechanism."

But, that still doesn't solve the problem. Because, when a single part is added to TTSS, it no longer functions. Which means it serves no biological purpose, and would be "evolved away" so to speak. Dawkins claimed though, that this destroyed the irreducible complexity argument. It doesn't. It just means, instead of the entire machine forming at once, it has to form 75% of it at once. Either way, there are vast caverns of evolution to cross, with no guidance from natural selection, since it's currently a non-functional mechanism, to get from TTSS to a rotary motor.

Car analogy time:
It's like saying a Bugatti Veyron is a slight derivative of a 1000kW Honda generator, because they both have an engine.

Where to start? I'll start with your "alternative options." A person teaching something like a flat earth or a moon made of cheese is something that would indeed be absurd. Why? Because it has definitively been disproven. We have knowledge that directly contradicts those theories so much so that they could in no way be correct. Why is everyone now acting as though creationism or intelligent design has been disproven? Can you point to something in those theories that is directly at odds with something that is fact? No. And just on a side note, intelligent design uses evolution as the way the world was created. How is that at odds with anything you are saying other than it says God led the way for it to happen?

Considering that neither creationism nor ID are scientific theories, there's nothing to disprove as far as science is concerned. You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, but that doesn't mean we should start teaching the truth of Pastafarianism in school.

Now let me get back to evolution. I will leave aside the problem of how the first living thing came into being.

As well you should, since that is not within the domain of the theory of evolution, but you knew that, right?

One of the problems I have with the evolutionary theory has to do with the energy required for new aspects of a species to come about through evolution. Let's start with the first cells. They likely had nothing for locomotion right? How were flagella developed in evolution? A cell with a flagellum moves by flapping the flagellum. How does it do so? It does so through the use of a small motor in its cell membrane. How did the cell get everything needed at the same time? Evolution would require the cell develop the flagellum in stages. Until every piece of the flagellum was present, it simply was using extra energy with zero benefit. Because of this, the cells with primitive flagella would have been at an evolutionary disadvantage than those without. So, how did something so simple as a flagellum evolve? Was it by pure and utter chance that all the parts evolved in the same generation? So, no, evolution has a lot of problems with it.

I encourage you to look into the problems with these theories. They are very enlightening.

So here we have your run-of-the-mill argument from ignorance and/or incredulity. You don't understand how it happened, therefore evolution has gaping holes and is wrong. Of course if you bothered to do even the most basic bit of research, you'd see that this subject has been covered all over the place, ad nauseum. Then you could at least frame your argument as a scientific rebuttal to those explanations. Since you haven't gotten past the hand-waving point, I don't think you're serious about finding answers, because you don't want a real answer. You want your beliefs to be validated. Sorry, but that's not what science is for.

So, what does Creation Science or Intelligent Design teach? What does it predict? How can you form an experiment? Can the result from an experiment change the premise? If not then it's not science.

As the Dover trial pointed out, all of the "evidence" for Intelligent Design is actually a false dichotomy logical fallacy. The argument consistently was "If Science doesn't know about X then the real cause must be God". However, it was discovered in the trial that the argument was closer to "if we ID folks don't understand X then it must be God" or "If we ID folks can misrepresent evolution and set up an easily destroyed straw man then the answer must be God."

It's analogous to saying "I have a strongly held dogmatic belief that the answer to all math questions is 42."

You may answer "But that's insane. 2+2 doesn't equal 42. 5*3 is not 42"

Then I would say "OK then, what's the cubed root of 4376 ?" to which you may reply:

"I don't know"

"Well then it must be 42"

I must admit, there is a big problem with this analogy. The problem is that there are SOME math problems to which the answer really is 42. That can be proven. But in thousands of years of humanity there is not a single piece of scientifically verifiable knowledge about how the universe works where the answer turned out to be "Well look at that! It really was God."

This is called the argument from personal incredulity, and is a favourite of the IDers. See http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/art icle.html for an excellent example of how this argument fails spectacularly with the nature-evolved wheel, the eubacterial flagellum.

Well, some evolutionists have an agenda. For example, Ernst Haeckel had one. Following his agenda, he copied some illustrations of embryos and claimed them to be of different species, and he fraudulently modified the illustrations of others in order to support his idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. See, for example http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Hae ckel.html.

We don't consider science to be subject to public policy, and as such, laymen don't get a vote.

We? Do I understand you claim to be an evolutionist? And you get a vote? And I don't get a vote? Because I'm not an evolutioninst?

That absolutely has everything to do with embryonic development which is known to mirror vertebrate evolution, at least to those who follow science.

It's not known to those who follow science as recently as 1874. Because it was on that date that Wilhelm His showed Haeckels work to be fraudulent. Nor to those who have followed science as recently as 1921 when the recapitulition theory was refuted in a paper by Walter Garstang. Nor to those who have followed it as recently as 1956 when the introdution to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species included the fact of Haeckel's fraud in the introduction.

Don't fall off the edge of the flat earth on your way out the door.

Should I also be wary of the phlogiston?

-Loyal

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths .html

I think that link should clarify your misunderstanding. While the moths do not particularly hang about on tree trunks, the populations still modified their ratios in line with the pollution. The only thing that the corrections have indicated so far, seems to be that instead of birds being the sole reason for this modification, it appears as one reason among many.

The population still "evolved", thogh to be fair, the evolution was mostly cosmetic and doesn't really prove anything of great import.

However, even on its own, with nothing else, it's about 1000 times greater evidence that ID has.

From the link you provided: "the application of a test that could demonstrate that an idea is false." That is what I said falsifiable means.

For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation has not been made.

You don't mean that. Anyone can show that you can produce a mousetrap, for example, from simpler parts.

Yes I do mean that. Who has stated that a mouse trap is irreducibly complex?

"A good example of such a system is a mechanical mousetrap. ... The mousetrap depends critically on the presence of all five it its components; if there were no spring, the mouse would not be pinned to the base; if there were no platform, the other pieces would fall apart; and so on. The function of the mousetrap requires all the pieces: you cannot catch a few mice with just a platform, add a spring and catch a few more mice, add a holding bar and catch a few more, All of the components have to be in place before any mice are caught. Thus the mousetrap is irreducibly complex." [MJ Behe, 1998, "Intelligent Design Theory as a Tool for Analyzing Biochemical Systems," in Mere Creation, p. 178]

The idea of irreducible complexity is that there are some components of life that could not have evolved from simpler components. This theory is clearly falsifiable. Simply demonstrate the contrary.

"Citing political pressure, George Bush recently discussed his views on Evolution and Intelligent Design, shortly following the Catholic Church's condemnation of the theory."

As a part of Science, once it achieves even close to mainstream acceptance (or is even an adequate explanation). Once it progresses beyond a simple argument from ignorance, and offers a single falsifiable prediction.

Until then it's unsubstantiated opinion or kook pseudoscience, and as such has no place in schools at all, let alone Science as a discipline.

a new species of bird emerges in your scenario because 2 species are not going to reproduce with each other based on differences in looks. however, they can reproduce in a lab. apparently you don't know the definition of species (of which there are many).

species are generally differentiated by the fact that they will not reproduce with one another in a natural setting, be it that they are geographically incapable (like your weak example) or it's just physically impossible. for instance (and you just had to choose birds), there are species of birds in north america an in europe that are exactly the same in everything except their name and some slight differences in looks (sparrows). they're perfectly capable of reproducing with one another, but a sparrow cannot fly across the atlantic ocean. therefore they are different species. that's not so much evolution. bad example. you explained no concepts to me.

darwin's finches, however, are an example with the different beak shapes for different eating habits.

also, i believe the prime example used in most science books (the peppered moth) has been refuted. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths .html

It goes roughly like: "I can't imagine how biological feature X could have evolved; therefore it couldn't have evolved." The only novelty is that it's now being advanced by people who aren't ignorant of biology, so we get examples like flagella where it is harder to find surviving intermediate forms, instead of examples like the eyeball where you can simply look at smaller and simpler creatures to see viable intermediate stages.

In this particular case, apparantly there is a large subset of the flagellum that is homologous to a secretory system in other bacteria. Of course, this isn't a problem for creationists (oops - I mean "Intelligent Design Advocates") who can simply switch their arguments from "The flagellum is irreduceably complex!" to "The flagellum is made of two parts each of which is irreduceably complex!" without batting an eyelash, but hopefully if you're still on the fence you'll be able to see the logical flaws.