Vincent the Troll
Offline
Auntie Proton
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:56:03 +0000
RobbieNoordzy
Quote:
The Mouse Trap
OK. So it's not a biological system, but given that it's the prime example Behe uses, it's fair game. However, it can be broken down and still work. If even the examples fail, how can Behe ever hope to find a non-reducible system in nature!?
The next point I wished to make was that Irreducible Complexity creates an impossible challenge by relying on a straw man version of evolution. I didn't mention it before, because it fits better in this section, but Behe has another objection to the TTSS being a reducible form of the flagellum.
His argument is that biologists have not met the challenge he presents. Namely, the reduced system that we can demonstrate must have the same function. Thus, since the TTSS does not act as a means of propulsion, it's not a reducible form of the flagellum. It's a different system all together. This was the argument he presented at a lecture in December of 2006 at the University of Kansas Video here (Real Player required).
The problem with this is that Behe is demanding that the development of such systems be explained via evolution. But evolution doesn't work on one system at a time. It borrows bits and pieces from other systems, "junk" DNA, and any source it can get its hands on. Thus, Behe presents an impossible challenge. Essentially was he says is "Show how it's possible to create system X via evolution, without using evolution."
OK. So it's not a biological system, but given that it's the prime example Behe uses, it's fair game. However, it can be broken down and still work. If even the examples fail, how can Behe ever hope to find a non-reducible system in nature!?
The next point I wished to make was that Irreducible Complexity creates an impossible challenge by relying on a straw man version of evolution. I didn't mention it before, because it fits better in this section, but Behe has another objection to the TTSS being a reducible form of the flagellum.
His argument is that biologists have not met the challenge he presents. Namely, the reduced system that we can demonstrate must have the same function. Thus, since the TTSS does not act as a means of propulsion, it's not a reducible form of the flagellum. It's a different system all together. This was the argument he presented at a lecture in December of 2006 at the University of Kansas Video here (Real Player required).
The problem with this is that Behe is demanding that the development of such systems be explained via evolution. But evolution doesn't work on one system at a time. It borrows bits and pieces from other systems, "junk" DNA, and any source it can get its hands on. Thus, Behe presents an impossible challenge. Essentially was he says is "Show how it's possible to create system X via evolution, without using evolution."
Not being the scientist that you obviously are, could you explain in relatively simple terms how this works in practice (the bold bit) - an example of the development of anything would be great.
I just figured I should answer this. I'm not a biologist, but I believe I can answer this, or will try to the best of my ability.
Evolution works through survival of the fittest and the associated mutation and recombination that makes them more fit. There are other factors, but they tend to be environmental.
It goes like this:
1) A simple structure develops through a mutation that benefits the creature in some way.
2) A minor mutation happens in that structure that makes it more beneficial to that creature than otherwise, or very nearly the same.
3) Another mutation happens that repeats this process.
The function the structure performs need not be the same in each step. The structure can lose or gain parts, even change shape. It can develop from a small nodule to an arm to a wing. It can develop from a calcium deposit to a spine to an elongated spine with a tail to a short spine ideal for bipedal motion.
Siphilis
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:03:20 +0000
Drake Sanada
If we just popped into existence, why would we not suddenly just pop out of existence?
Auntie Proton
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:08:22 +0000
Siphilis
Well, parts of us pop in and out of "existence" all the time.
When does this occur and how?
VoijaRisa
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:17:54 +0000
RobbieNoordzy
Quote:
But evolution doesn't work on one system at a time. It borrows bits and pieces from other systems, "junk" DNA, and any source it can get its hands on.
Not being the scientist that you obviously are, could you explain in relatively simple terms how this works in practice (the bold bit) - an example of the development of anything would be great.
RobbieNoordzy
Quote:
But while the development of the eye has been understood for a long time now
Is there a link (web or otherwise) showing the development?
faulc
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:33:30 +0000
This is probably very irrelevant, but using jellyfish as an example for lack of motion but still having syringe-like isn't very correct. While the movement that jellyfish use is very poor for forward motion, it is actually very efficient for creating small currents to draw prey closer to the tentacles. A better example would be coral, who rely on water currents to bring their prey close.
jack0076970
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:18:33 +0000
RobbieNoordzy
It's Friday!
A Challenge for the weekend for those with too much time on their hands (worth >1,100 gold!)
Why 1,100 & not 11,000,000?
[1] Because I'm cheap & [2] that's pretty much all I have wink
The Evolution of the Mouse Trap
The Challenge
Build working [functioning as opposed to just staged or computer generated] models of each of the mousetrap stages & post on YouTube or somewhere equivalent.
Guides
Feel free to pull apart an actual mousetrap... or use whatever other junk you need.
If you can't get a real mouse to co-operate, you may use a rubber mouse, Barbie doll etc etc
The video should be in HD if available (otherwise best available), as close up as reasonably possible & include an audio commentary right through the process.
The video will also show you actually setting up the trap.
If using the rubber mouse/Barbie option, will at least partially show your hand guiding whatever you are holding.
Extra kudos for documenting the creation of you traps.
Disclaimer
I won't be responsible in the event that you...
[1] Get busted putting holes in the floorboards/lino
[2] Get you fingers caught while setting up or coaxing any trap with a rubber mouse
[3] Any Barbie doll damage
Post the links here & 1,100 gold & bragging rights are yours!
A Challenge for the weekend for those with too much time on their hands (worth >1,100 gold!)
Why 1,100 & not 11,000,000?
[1] Because I'm cheap & [2] that's pretty much all I have wink
The Evolution of the Mouse Trap
The Challenge
Build working [functioning as opposed to just staged or computer generated] models of each of the mousetrap stages & post on YouTube or somewhere equivalent.
Guides
Feel free to pull apart an actual mousetrap... or use whatever other junk you need.
If you can't get a real mouse to co-operate, you may use a rubber mouse, Barbie doll etc etc
The video should be in HD if available (otherwise best available), as close up as reasonably possible & include an audio commentary right through the process.
The video will also show you actually setting up the trap.
If using the rubber mouse/Barbie option, will at least partially show your hand guiding whatever you are holding.
Extra kudos for documenting the creation of you traps.
Disclaimer
I won't be responsible in the event that you...
[1] Get busted putting holes in the floorboards/lino
[2] Get you fingers caught while setting up or coaxing any trap with a rubber mouse
[3] Any Barbie doll damage
Post the links here & 1,100 gold & bragging rights are yours!
It's been a month now... has anyone taken a look at this at all?
The images in the link above are nice & all that but this is not something we need to theorize, hypothesise or even fantasize about (forgive the spelling)... it's one thing to draw up some diagrams & say the posterboy can be reduced as easily as this, but show that it can be by actually producing each working model as per the challenge above. If they can't be, then maybe some editing needs to be done to a few postings & web sites...
Protagonist
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:16:07 +0000
I agreed with most of what you said, until I saw this nugget in the OP:
First off, by personifying evolution as you have with your language, you are turning Evolution into a supreme being of its own.
Second, evolution does not work that way. Evolution happens as a result of successful gene combinations being intrinsically linked to species survival. It does not "borrow" from anything, it does not have a specific direction at all. This is stated in plain words in the file you presented on cooption.
Evolution has very little to do with DNA. In fact, Evolution has nothing to do with DNA and everything to do with pragmatism. Things that work are more capable of survival than things that don't -also, or things that propagate with more efficiency beat out those that propagate without that boost in efficiency (keeping in mind the concepts of sustainability, etc). It's really quite logical and not nearly as difficult as you're making it sound. While genetic info is passed on within DNA and other genetic material, it is not done so randomly. In fact, it is done so quite rigidly through direct transcribing by RNA.
It doesn't really disprove your argument, and that's not my intention by any means. I just think that a well-minded theist could slice at your credibility if he picked up on it.
Quote:
But evolution doesn't work on one system at a time. It borrows bits and pieces from other systems, "junk" DNA, and any source it can get its hands on.
First off, by personifying evolution as you have with your language, you are turning Evolution into a supreme being of its own.
Second, evolution does not work that way. Evolution happens as a result of successful gene combinations being intrinsically linked to species survival. It does not "borrow" from anything, it does not have a specific direction at all. This is stated in plain words in the file you presented on cooption.
Evolution has very little to do with DNA. In fact, Evolution has nothing to do with DNA and everything to do with pragmatism. Things that work are more capable of survival than things that don't -also, or things that propagate with more efficiency beat out those that propagate without that boost in efficiency (keeping in mind the concepts of sustainability, etc). It's really quite logical and not nearly as difficult as you're making it sound. While genetic info is passed on within DNA and other genetic material, it is not done so randomly. In fact, it is done so quite rigidly through direct transcribing by RNA.
It doesn't really disprove your argument, and that's not my intention by any means. I just think that a well-minded theist could slice at your credibility if he picked up on it.
Joziaac
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:27:16 +0000
Well... I really don't see how this will lead to any discussion as the OP is so thorough that the only thing you can really do is accept and agree or ignore its existence and continue believing in whatever god you always believed in.
jack0076970
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 03 May 2009 13:08:45 +0000
Seeing as the 11,000,000 gold challenge thread has been resurrected (a year already huh?), let me resurrect a related challenge - the 1,100 gold challenge. 5 months now & not a single contender letalone a serious one.
It's been a month now... has anyone taken a look at this at all?
The images in the link above are nice & all that but this is not something we need to theorize, hypothesise or even fantasize about (forgive the spelling)... it's one thing to draw up some diagrams & say the posterboy can be reduced as easily as this, but show that it can be by actually producing each working model as per the challenge above. If they can't be, then maybe some editing needs to be done to a few postings & web sites...
RobbieNoordzy
RobbieNoordzy
It's Friday!
A Challenge for the weekend for those with too much time on their hands (worth >1,100 gold!)
Why 1,100 & not 11,000,000?
[1] Because I'm cheap & [2] that's pretty much all I have wink
The Evolution of the Mouse Trap
The Challenge
Build working [functioning as opposed to just staged or computer generated] models of each of the mousetrap stages & post on YouTube or somewhere equivalent.
Guides
Feel free to pull apart an actual mousetrap... or use whatever other junk you need.
If you can't get a real mouse to co-operate, you may use a rubber mouse, Barbie doll etc etc
The video should be in HD if available (otherwise best available), as close up as reasonably possible & include an audio commentary right through the process.
The video will also show you actually setting up the trap.
If using the rubber mouse/Barbie option, will at least partially show your hand guiding whatever you are holding.
Extra kudos for documenting the creation of you traps.
Disclaimer
I won't be responsible in the event that you...
[1] Get busted putting holes in the floorboards/lino
[2] Get you fingers caught while setting up or coaxing any trap with a rubber mouse
[3] Any Barbie doll damage
Post the links here & 1,100 gold & bragging rights are yours!
A Challenge for the weekend for those with too much time on their hands (worth >1,100 gold!)
Why 1,100 & not 11,000,000?
[1] Because I'm cheap & [2] that's pretty much all I have wink
The Evolution of the Mouse Trap
The Challenge
Build working [functioning as opposed to just staged or computer generated] models of each of the mousetrap stages & post on YouTube or somewhere equivalent.
Guides
Feel free to pull apart an actual mousetrap... or use whatever other junk you need.
If you can't get a real mouse to co-operate, you may use a rubber mouse, Barbie doll etc etc
The video should be in HD if available (otherwise best available), as close up as reasonably possible & include an audio commentary right through the process.
The video will also show you actually setting up the trap.
If using the rubber mouse/Barbie option, will at least partially show your hand guiding whatever you are holding.
Extra kudos for documenting the creation of you traps.
Disclaimer
I won't be responsible in the event that you...
[1] Get busted putting holes in the floorboards/lino
[2] Get you fingers caught while setting up or coaxing any trap with a rubber mouse
[3] Any Barbie doll damage
Post the links here & 1,100 gold & bragging rights are yours!
It's been a month now... has anyone taken a look at this at all?
The images in the link above are nice & all that but this is not something we need to theorize, hypothesise or even fantasize about (forgive the spelling)... it's one thing to draw up some diagrams & say the posterboy can be reduced as easily as this, but show that it can be by actually producing each working model as per the challenge above. If they can't be, then maybe some editing needs to be done to a few postings & web sites...
jack0076970
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:33:18 +0000
Joziaac
Well... I really don't see how this will lead to any discussion as the OP is so thorough that the only thing you can really do is accept and agree or ignore its existence and continue believing in whatever god you always believed in.
...7.5 months.
It's still relevant as the OP has referenced it along with the McDonald mousetrap & makes the claim it can be broken down & still work. Obviously not thorough enough. It does raise some questions... maybe the reason for this thread dying is that even this simple challenge can't be handled and maybe acknowledging an error in this matter would be too embarrassing.
Le Pere Duchesne
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:00:10 +0000
Creationism and the faux-secular version Inteligent Design, along with the topic of this thread, Irridudible Complexity have always reminded me of this passage:
Dialectics of Nature" by Frederick Engels 1883]
God is nowhere treated worse than by the natural scientists who believe in him. Materialists simply explain the facts, without making use of such phrases, they do this first when importunate pious believers try to force God upon them, and then they answer curtly, either like Laplace: Sire, je n’avais pas, etc., or more rudely in the manner of the Dutch merchants who, when German commercial travellers press their shoddy goods on them, are accustomed to turn them away with the words: Ik kan die zaken niet gebruiken [I have no use for the things] and that is the end of the matter: But what God has had to suffer at the hands of his defenders! In the history of modern natural science, God is treated by his defenders as Frederick William III was treated by his generals and officials in the Jena campaign. One division of the army after another lays down its arms, one fortress after another capitulates before the march of science, until at last the whole infinite realm of nature is conquered by science, and there is no place left in it for the Creator. Newton still allowed Him the “first impulse” but forbade Him any further interference ‘in his solar system. Father Secchi bows Him out of the solar system altogether, with all canonical honours it is true, but none the less categorically for all that, and he only allows Him a creative act as regards the primordial nebula. And so in all spheres. In biology, his last great Don Quixote, Agassiz, even ascribes positive nonsense to Him; He is supposed to have created not only the actual animals but also abstract animals, the fish as such! And finally Tyndall totally forbids Him any entry into nature and relegates Him to the world of emotional processes, only admitting Him because, after all, there must be somebody who knows more about all these things (nature) than John Tyndall! What a distance from the old God – the Creator of heaven and earth, the maintainer of all things – without whom not a hair can fall from the head!
Tyndall’s emotional need proves nothing. The Chevalier des Grieux also had an emotional need to love and possess Marion Lescaut, who sold herself and him over and over again; for her sake he became a cardsharper and pimp, and if Tyndall wants to reproach him, he would reply with his “emotional need"!
God=nescio; but ignorantia non est argumentum (Spino
God is nowhere treated worse than by the natural scientists who believe in him. Materialists simply explain the facts, without making use of such phrases, they do this first when importunate pious believers try to force God upon them, and then they answer curtly, either like Laplace: Sire, je n’avais pas, etc., or more rudely in the manner of the Dutch merchants who, when German commercial travellers press their shoddy goods on them, are accustomed to turn them away with the words: Ik kan die zaken niet gebruiken [I have no use for the things] and that is the end of the matter: But what God has had to suffer at the hands of his defenders! In the history of modern natural science, God is treated by his defenders as Frederick William III was treated by his generals and officials in the Jena campaign. One division of the army after another lays down its arms, one fortress after another capitulates before the march of science, until at last the whole infinite realm of nature is conquered by science, and there is no place left in it for the Creator. Newton still allowed Him the “first impulse” but forbade Him any further interference ‘in his solar system. Father Secchi bows Him out of the solar system altogether, with all canonical honours it is true, but none the less categorically for all that, and he only allows Him a creative act as regards the primordial nebula. And so in all spheres. In biology, his last great Don Quixote, Agassiz, even ascribes positive nonsense to Him; He is supposed to have created not only the actual animals but also abstract animals, the fish as such! And finally Tyndall totally forbids Him any entry into nature and relegates Him to the world of emotional processes, only admitting Him because, after all, there must be somebody who knows more about all these things (nature) than John Tyndall! What a distance from the old God – the Creator of heaven and earth, the maintainer of all things – without whom not a hair can fall from the head!
Tyndall’s emotional need proves nothing. The Chevalier des Grieux also had an emotional need to love and possess Marion Lescaut, who sold herself and him over and over again; for her sake he became a cardsharper and pimp, and if Tyndall wants to reproach him, he would reply with his “emotional need"!
God=nescio; but ignorantia non est argumentum (Spino
2qf2kdq5:0="Dialectics of Nature" by Frederick Engels 1883]
God is nowhere treated worse than by the natural scientists who believe in him. Materialists simply explain the facts, without making use of such phrases, they do this first when importunate pious believers try to force God upon them, and then they answer curtly, either like Laplace: [i]Sire, je n’avais pas[/i], etc., or more rudely in the manner of the Dutch merchants who, when German commercial travellers press their shoddy goods on them, are accustomed to turn them away with the words: [i]Ik kan die zaken niet gebruiken[/i] [I have no use for the things] and that is the end of the matter: But what God has had to suffer at the hands of his defenders! In the history of modern natural science, God is treated by his defenders as Frederick William III was treated by his generals and officials in the Jena campaign. One division of the army after another lays down its arms, one fortress after another capitulates before the march of science, until at last the whole infinite realm of nature is conquered by science, and there is no place left in it for the Creator. Newton still allowed Him the “first impulse” but forbade Him any further interference ‘in his solar system. Father Secchi bows Him out of the solar system altogether, with all canonical honours it is true, but none the less categorically for all that, and he only allows Him a creative act as regards the primordial nebula. And so in all spheres. In biology, his last great Don Quixote, Agassiz, even ascribes positive nonsense to Him; He is supposed to have created not only the actual animals but also abstract animals, the fish as such! And finally Tyndall totally forbids Him any entry into nature and relegates Him to the world of emotional processes, only admitting Him because, after all, there must be somebody who knows more about all these things (nature) than John Tyndall! What a distance from the old God – the Creator of heaven and earth, the maintainer of all things – without whom not a hair can fall from the head!
Tyndall’s emotional need proves nothing. The Chevalier des Grieux also had an emotional need to love and possess Marion Lescaut, who sold herself and him over and over again; for her sake he became a cardsharper and pimp, and if Tyndall wants to reproach him, he would reply with his “emotional need"!
God=[i]nescio[/i]; but [i]ignorantia non est argumentum [/i](Spinoza).
God is nowhere treated worse than by the natural scientists who believe in him. Materialists simply explain the facts, without making use of such phrases, they do this first when importunate pious believers try to force God upon them, and then they answer curtly, either like Laplace: [i]Sire, je n’avais pas[/i], etc., or more rudely in the manner of the Dutch merchants who, when German commercial travellers press their shoddy goods on them, are accustomed to turn them away with the words: [i]Ik kan die zaken niet gebruiken[/i] [I have no use for the things] and that is the end of the matter: But what God has had to suffer at the hands of his defenders! In the history of modern natural science, God is treated by his defenders as Frederick William III was treated by his generals and officials in the Jena campaign. One division of the army after another lays down its arms, one fortress after another capitulates before the march of science, until at last the whole infinite realm of nature is conquered by science, and there is no place left in it for the Creator. Newton still allowed Him the “first impulse” but forbade Him any further interference ‘in his solar system. Father Secchi bows Him out of the solar system altogether, with all canonical honours it is true, but none the less categorically for all that, and he only allows Him a creative act as regards the primordial nebula. And so in all spheres. In biology, his last great Don Quixote, Agassiz, even ascribes positive nonsense to Him; He is supposed to have created not only the actual animals but also abstract animals, the fish as such! And finally Tyndall totally forbids Him any entry into nature and relegates Him to the world of emotional processes, only admitting Him because, after all, there must be somebody who knows more about all these things (nature) than John Tyndall! What a distance from the old God – the Creator of heaven and earth, the maintainer of all things – without whom not a hair can fall from the head!
Tyndall’s emotional need proves nothing. The Chevalier des Grieux also had an emotional need to love and possess Marion Lescaut, who sold herself and him over and over again; for her sake he became a cardsharper and pimp, and if Tyndall wants to reproach him, he would reply with his “emotional need"!
God=[i]nescio[/i]; but [i]ignorantia non est argumentum [/i](Spinoza).
