|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrior of Metal Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:36 pm
Gravechylde Well, of course there's things that can't be broken down, they had to start somewhere. Out of nowhere though? Then where does that leave evolution, which is a series of gradual changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:43 pm
Warrior of Metal Gravechylde Well, of course there's things that can't be broken down, they had to start somewhere. Out of nowhere though? Then where does that leave evolution, which is a series of gradual changes. I just don't see how a flagellum couldn't have evolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrior of Metal Vice Captain
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:46 pm
Gravechylde Warrior of Metal Gravechylde Well, of course there's things that can't be broken down, they had to start somewhere. Out of nowhere though? Then where does that leave evolution, which is a series of gradual changes. I just don't see how a flagellum couldn't have evolved. Because there is nothing simpler that shares a similar structure that performs that task of propelling the organism. It can't be taken back any further, and it can't be made simpler. I just don't see how it could have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:58 pm
Warrior of Metal Gravechylde Warrior of Metal Gravechylde Well, of course there's things that can't be broken down, they had to start somewhere. Out of nowhere though? Then where does that leave evolution, which is a series of gradual changes. I just don't see how a flagellum couldn't have evolved. Because there is nothing simpler that shares a similar structure that performs that task of propelling the organism. It can't be taken back any further, and it can't be made simpler. I just don't see how it could have. It could've started out shorter, and then got longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrior of Metal Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 12:57 am
Gravechylde Warrior of Metal Gravechylde Warrior of Metal Gravechylde Well, of course there's things that can't be broken down, they had to start somewhere. Out of nowhere though? Then where does that leave evolution, which is a series of gradual changes. I just don't see how a flagellum couldn't have evolved. Because there is nothing simpler that shares a similar structure that performs that task of propelling the organism. It can't be taken back any further, and it can't be made simpler. I just don't see how it could have. It could've started out shorter, and then got longer. That's not the point. The point isn't in length, its in the mechanical processes inside of the flagellum that depend on one another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:49 am
warrior - irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy. by it's very nature, you cannot reduce something to it's simplest form because there is always a hypothetically simpler form. but evolution is not based on irreducible complexity. it simply states that organisms in one state, SHOULD the develop mutations that benefit them, can evolve to another state. the flagellum most likely started out as a fluke which benefited the owner. it's quarter to five in the morning and i'm losing my train of thought, i'm going to bed. if this doesnt make sense or seems unfinished i'll fix it in the morning. i just had to get something down before i forgot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrior of Metal Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:32 am
MegaTherion777 warrior - irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy. by it's very nature, you cannot reduce something to it's simplest form because there is always a hypothetically simpler form. but evolution is not based on irreducible complexity. it simply states that organisms in one state, SHOULD the develop mutations that benefit them, can evolve to another state. the flagellum most likely started out as a fluke which benefited the owner. it's quarter to five in the morning and i'm losing my train of thought, i'm going to bed. if this doesnt make sense or seems unfinished i'll fix it in the morning. i just had to get something down before i forgot. What you're missing is that it has internal mechanisms that it relies on, that can't happen from one mutation. If a slight mutation in that direction were to occur, it would have to passed on and then another would have to occur, and it would have to carry on, until all of the sudden it starts to function. That's like banging your head against a keyboard until you end up with an exact replica of Shakespeare's complete works. According to evolution, if a mutation is to be passed on it must be advantageous, and it wouldn't be advantageous until it developed the systems it needs to function, and those systems would result from thousands of generations of passing on a slight mutation that happens to mutate more and more, and without doing anything the wrong way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:39 pm
Warrior of Metal MegaTherion777 warrior - irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy. by it's very nature, you cannot reduce something to it's simplest form because there is always a hypothetically simpler form. but evolution is not based on irreducible complexity. it simply states that organisms in one state, SHOULD the develop mutations that benefit them, can evolve to another state. the flagellum most likely started out as a fluke which benefited the owner. it's quarter to five in the morning and i'm losing my train of thought, i'm going to bed. if this doesnt make sense or seems unfinished i'll fix it in the morning. i just had to get something down before i forgot. What you're missing is that it has internal mechanisms that it relies on, that can't happen from one mutation. If a slight mutation in that direction were to occur, it would have to passed on and then another would have to occur, and it would have to carry on, until all of the sudden it starts to function. That's like banging your head against a keyboard until you end up with an exact replica of Shakespeare's complete works. According to evolution, if a mutation is to be passed on it must be advantageous, and it wouldn't be advantageous until it developed the systems it needs to function, and those systems would result from thousands of generations of passing on a slight mutation that happens to mutate more and more, and without doing anything the wrong way. well so organisms with flagella started out with flagella. point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:47 am
MegaTherion777 Warrior of Metal MegaTherion777 warrior - irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy. by it's very nature, you cannot reduce something to it's simplest form because there is always a hypothetically simpler form. but evolution is not based on irreducible complexity. it simply states that organisms in one state, SHOULD the develop mutations that benefit them, can evolve to another state. the flagellum most likely started out as a fluke which benefited the owner. it's quarter to five in the morning and i'm losing my train of thought, i'm going to bed. if this doesnt make sense or seems unfinished i'll fix it in the morning. i just had to get something down before i forgot. What you're missing is that it has internal mechanisms that it relies on, that can't happen from one mutation. If a slight mutation in that direction were to occur, it would have to passed on and then another would have to occur, and it would have to carry on, until all of the sudden it starts to function. That's like banging your head against a keyboard until you end up with an exact replica of Shakespeare's complete works. According to evolution, if a mutation is to be passed on it must be advantageous, and it wouldn't be advantageous until it developed the systems it needs to function, and those systems would result from thousands of generations of passing on a slight mutation that happens to mutate more and more, and without doing anything the wrong way. well so organisms with flagella started out with flagella. point? He's saying that it couldn't have evolved, it had to have been made by a creator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:52 pm
Gravechylde MegaTherion777 Warrior of Metal MegaTherion777 warrior - irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy. by it's very nature, you cannot reduce something to it's simplest form because there is always a hypothetically simpler form. but evolution is not based on irreducible complexity. it simply states that organisms in one state, SHOULD the develop mutations that benefit them, can evolve to another state. the flagellum most likely started out as a fluke which benefited the owner. it's quarter to five in the morning and i'm losing my train of thought, i'm going to bed. if this doesnt make sense or seems unfinished i'll fix it in the morning. i just had to get something down before i forgot. What you're missing is that it has internal mechanisms that it relies on, that can't happen from one mutation. If a slight mutation in that direction were to occur, it would have to passed on and then another would have to occur, and it would have to carry on, until all of the sudden it starts to function. That's like banging your head against a keyboard until you end up with an exact replica of Shakespeare's complete works. According to evolution, if a mutation is to be passed on it must be advantageous, and it wouldn't be advantageous until it developed the systems it needs to function, and those systems would result from thousands of generations of passing on a slight mutation that happens to mutate more and more, and without doing anything the wrong way. well so organisms with flagella started out with flagella. point? He's saying that it couldn't have evolved, it had to have been made by a creator. that's a logical fallacy. just because it didnt evolve doesnt mean it had to be made by a creator. there is a bevy of other options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:16 am
What are the other options?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:28 am
What are the other naturalistic explanations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrior of Metal Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:34 am
I believe flagella were in fact evolved somehow. The thing is we don't know how (yet). Just like we don't exactly know how the first living organism came to be on this planet.
But that's not what I wanted to say. What I wanted to say is that some of you keep throwing onto evolution as theory trying to show how wrong it is. Let me assume for the duration of this post that in fact it is wrong. Now, how does that help Intelligent Design theory as a scientific theory? It's still not scientific, because it still involves supernatural powers that we, humans, cannot comprehend and we, humans, cannot measure.
And just to comment on any argument shown here that involves "it hasn't been proven that this or that". Indeed, even if it hasn't that doesn't stop the theory from being valid, because it hasn't been also proven wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:47 am
Warrior of Metal What are the other naturalistic explanations? The fact that we don't know this naturalistic explanation today doesn't mean there's none. Assume you lived 500 years ago. Would you imagine you could be talking to other people who are at the same time located thousands of miles away from you? Would you imagine this possible without using of some supernatural power? And yet, we're right here, thousands of miles away from each other and we're discussing using natural powers called physics. So, don't say it's impossible, until you are sure that is the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:07 am
kacisko Warrior of Metal What are the other naturalistic explanations? The fact that we don't know this naturalistic explanation today doesn't mean there's none. Assume you lived 500 years ago. Would you imagine you could be talking to other people who are at the same time located thousands of miles away from you? Would you imagine this possible without using of some supernatural power? And yet, we're right here, thousands of miles away from each other and we're discussing using natural powers called physics. So, don't say it's impossible, until you are sure that is the truth.That argument could be applied to support Intelligent Design, just because we don't know how god used his powers, or can't measure them today, doesn't necessarily prove it wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
