Jump to content


Photo

Can Copulation Be Considered Irreducably Complex?


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#81 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 27 June 2010 - 07:11 PM

The evolution of the flagella is much better understood now, but was even understood before Behe.

First, let me look at Behe’s views:



http://en.wikipedia....School_District

The transcript is available if you wish to read it.

In the Judges words:
We can see that ID is not scientific, and that Behe uses a very strange definition of science, but to look at the evolution of the flagella we can use the same transcript

More from the transcript (Dr Miller’s testimony):
Which basically shows that the flagella is not irreducibly complex.

View Post


You really buy this complete twisting of a simple concept--irreducible complexity?

You think that this judge and these lawyers determine the demarcation of science. They are law people. They do it because they can and that's it. The judge believes because ID and creationism import implication to a creator, they are the same thing.

Sorry guys, discussing the possibility of design in life is not the same thing as as Jehovah God which sent his Son Christ to die for our sins, so that we might live in Him. That this God sent a flood which destroyed the earth.

ID and creationism are not the same thing. One goes much farther than the other. ID stops at the suggestion or implication of design. Creationism goes to the interpretation of flood geology. ID includes theistic evolutionists. Creationism only allows OEC and YEC. Though creationism includes and agrees with most tenants of ID, ID can not include all the tenants of creationism. No matter what some lawyer argues.



Ken Miller...
If you animate the slide, you'll see that Dr. Behe's prediction is that the parts of any irreducibly complex system should have no useful function. Therefore, we ought to be able to take the bacterial flagellum, for example, break its parts down, and discover that none of the parts are good for anything except when we're all assembled in a flagellum.


I'm not trying to be mean, but how utterly stupid! No. How much is this twisting a simple concept? Just like Miller, when answering Behe's mousetrap, takes a partially disassembled mousetrap and sticks it on his tie, confidently asserting it is a tie clasp. But what he fails to notice is that intelligence (even Miller has some) has designated the mousetrap as such, and manipulated it into a place which has relevant function.

NUMBER 1-- BEHE NEVER SAID OR SUGGESTED SUCH FOOLISHNESS! Show me one quote where he said, "...the parts of any irreducibly complex system should have no useful function." Or one quote that could be interpreted as such. This is intentional straw man argument.

As a molecular biologist with any kind of brain at all, he knows that the bodies of different organisms are made up of similar proteins. This is what Miller is getting at --that his suggested pump precursor malarkey is the forerunner of the flagellum.

Well, wake up people. It's a pump--which is what? A machine. It's a flagellum with all the principles of an electric motor. Elementary! That is until you introduce denial and stupidity!!!!! Sorry guys--this kind of hooliganism upsets me to the nth extent!

I have worked on a few cars in my life. I've seen the inside of an altenator (electric motor) and I've seen the the inside of a fuel pump. I see alot of differences even though they are made of similar materials.



Need I say more. This is what Miller does. Tries to feed us his marsh skum and tell us it's filet mignon. Sorry--you don't get a tip Mr. Miller--in fact I'm leaving the restaurant!

#82 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 June 2010 - 07:53 PM

As a molecular biologist with any kind of brain at all, he knows that the bodies of different organisms are made up of similar proteins. This is what Miller is getting at --that his suggested pump precursor malarkey is the forerunner of the flagellum.

Well, wake up people. It's a pump--which is what? A machine. It's a flagellum with all the principles of an electric motor. Elementary! That is until you introduce denial and stupidity!!!!! Sorry guys--this kind of hooliganism upsets me to the nth extent!


What could be worse than that?

Miller knowing that the current theory predicts that the flagellum evolved literally billions of years before the TTSS; and that nearly all scientists are in agreement that it is a degeneration of the bacterial flagullum.

In this light, consider that the TTSS system is now thought to have evolved from the fully formed flagellum - not the other way around. In 2000, Nguyen et. al. published a paper in Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology titled, Phylogenetic analyses of the constituents of Type III protein secretion systems[5] In this paper the authors argue strongly that the TTSS system evolved from the flagellum. Of course, those like Miller fail to point out such conclusions published in mainstream scientific literature. But such conclusions should have been obvious from the beginning. Which came first? - - a cavefish without eyes or a fish in a pond with eyes? Clearly it is much easier to loose something that was already there than it is to create it in the first place. Remember Humpty Dumpty and all the kings men?


http://creationwiki.org/Flagellum

#83 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 27 June 2010 - 10:12 PM

But we're not talking about evolution.  We were talking about IC.  IC is a simple concept that demonstrates the need for multiple simultaneous mutation and selection.  This then causes the improbability of evolution to go up exponentially.

View Post


Which is why I keep trying to explain that while irreducible complexity exists, it’s a poor model for understanding evolution. It assumes that parts have come about in a specific sequence with the ultimate purpose of building a biological machine, and this is not the case. Not only does this imply that evolutionary processes are aiming towards some predetermined goal, but it also fails to account for any previous “machines” which may have shown up as intermediates along the way.

That's a grand claim. Are you stating this as a fact?  If so please submit the evidence.  On the other hand, I have evidence of IC in glycolysis.  Let me remove NAD+ from the process to see if it still works.

View Post


No, I’m not stating it as a fact. I’m just sharing an evolutionary hypothesis for biochemical evolution.

Chemical processes don't evolve.  They either react because reactants and necessary conditions are present or they do not react.

View Post


The enzymes that catalyze these chemical processes do.

Oh I see--you know of other chemical pathways to perform this function.  Then you should be able to genetically engineer the proper mutations to do this.  I'll be looking forward to your journal paper! 

View Post


I know other chemical pathways, but I’m not suggesting I could genetically engineer a cell which would use them! My point is just that glycolysis, though complex, is made up of fairly basic organic reactions. And like most reactions, there is more than one path that can be taken.

To deny that this process has all the semblances of a machine process is to deny an empirical fact.

View Post


I’m not denying that biological machines exist, but they have little in common with man-made machines.

This process is present in all cells which contain mitochondria. Because you have to have ATP. Is there one, plant or animal, eukayote or prokaryote, that doesn't contain mitochondria?

View Post


Prokaryotes don't contain mitochondria. According to the theory of endosymbiosis, they are what gave rise to mitochondria in eukaryotes.

#84 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 June 2010 - 12:30 AM

Which is why I keep trying to explain that while irreducible complexity exists, it’s a poor model for understanding evolution.


Why do you keep thinking that IC is a model of evolution? It's a model for understanding creation.

It assumes that parts have come about in a specific sequence with the ultimate purpose of building a biological machine, and this is not the case.


It assumes that the entire mechanism was created instantaneously. It never assumes how it was put together, rather how to disassemble it without loosing function. Evolutionists are the ones claiming that biological systems aren't designed, so it's their dilemma to figure out the pathway of assembly. By reverse engineering, we can already see that there isn't one.

I’m not denying that biological machines exist, but they have little in common with man-made machines.


Only because man can't make one nor can we imagine how to. Scientists are still clueless how the first life form came about, they simply assume it did.




Enjoy.

#85 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 June 2010 - 01:01 AM

the current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system,” but “[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.” Id. In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to “repair this defect in future work;”

however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect. Id.; 22:61-65 (Behe).


You are still using this defect that Behe acknowledges.

To start with something and ask "how could this be disassembled?" is the wrong way of dealing with this. It is by asking "how could a simple system slowly build this up?"

This is the flaw in ID that Behe says he wanted to he “repair this defect in future work;” but he still hasn't and you still haven't addressed this flaw.

#86 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 28 June 2010 - 01:29 AM

You are still using this defect that Behe acknowledges.

To start with something and ask "how could this be disassembled?" is the wrong way of dealing with this.  It is by asking "how could a simple system slowly build this up?"

This is the flaw in ID that Behe says he wanted to he “repair this defect in future work;” but he still hasn't and you still haven't addressed this flaw.

View Post


He did deal with this in his rebuttal to Miller's mousetrap rebuttal. He shows that there are even more problems to deal with in building one step at a time. For instance, perhaps you have several functions for the mousetrap platform, but then he shows little parts like the staples in a mousetrap which have to be simultaneously connected to install a part.

You don't seem to understand your own dilemma. It is your tenant of unguidedness that forces you into a probability problem. Whenever you add simultaneous encoding that would have never been done before you multiply exponentially the improbability of a certain thing. Then will it have a function afterwords which can be selected for? There is no proof that after you pass the probability test, it is going to be selected for.

The only thing you are left with is, well it must have happened because we are here--that is circular reasoning, not scientific data. But evos just keep teaching the ToE as fact. What a lie.

#87 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 28 June 2010 - 03:21 AM

He did deal with this in his rebuttal to Miller's mousetrap rebuttal.  He shows that there are even more problems to deal with in building one step at a time.  For instance, perhaps you have several functions for the mousetrap platform, but then he shows little parts like the staples in a mousetrap which have to be simultaneously connected to install a part.

You don't seem to understand your own dilemma.  It is your tenant of unguidedness that forces you into a probability problem.  Whenever you add simultaneous encoding that would have never been done before you multiply exponentially the improbability of a certain thing.  Then will it have a function afterwords which can be selected for?  There is no proof that after you pass the probability test, it is going to be selected for. 

The only thing you are left with is, well it must have happened because we are here--that is circular reasoning, not scientific data.  But evos just keep teaching the ToE as fact.  What a lie.

View Post


Great post. :rolleyes: You certainly highlight some probability implications. It will be interesting to see the responses.

#88 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 June 2010 - 06:21 AM

What do you want me to work out? You keep shifting the goalposts. Pick one and just one thing that you think is irreducibly complex. This started with copulation, changed to mitosis, went through flagella and ATP synthesase. There are thousands of them, so if I show that one is not IC all you need to do is say, okay but what about this one.

Present one case in a manner which is scientifically acceptable to be dealt with, ie present the scientific basis for saying it is IC. Before proceeing, present the method by which we may scientifically know whether it is ID or not ID.

In every case so far presented it has just been a case of "I don't believe it could have evolved"

It is your tenant of unguidedness that forces you into a probability problem. Whenever you add simultaneous encoding that would have never been done before you multiply exponentially the improbability of a certain thing


This isn't a problem when the theory of evolution is examined fairly.

#89 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 June 2010 - 09:54 AM

To start with something and ask "how could this be disassembled?" is the wrong way of dealing with this. It is by asking "how could a simple system slowly build this up?


Then why did Miller disassemble it to the TTSS? And why do you also have no answer how it could have been slowly built up? It appears that disassembling it is the only option for either side, except saying that IC is a religion and a false representation of evolution, which isn't a scientific answer, but an escape from knowing that there isn't one.

#90 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 June 2010 - 03:39 PM

Good question, Jason!

Miller did that to show that Behe's definition was refuted in that case.

Just looking back over the posts and found this:

In this light, consider that the TIIIPS system is now thought to have evolved from the fully formed flagellum - not the other way around. In 2000, Nguyen et. al. published a paper in Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology titled, Phylogenetic analyses of the constituents of Type III protein secretion systems[5] In this paper the authors argue strongly that the TTSS system evolved from the flagellum. Of course, those like Miller fail to point out such conclusions published in mainstream scientific literature. But such conclusions should have been obvious from the beginning. Which came first? - - a cavefish without eyes or a fish in a pond with eyes? Clearly it is much easier to loose something that was already there than it is to create it in the first place. Remember Humpty Dumpty and all the kings men?


Ah, so the TTSS evolved by removing pieces from the flagella? I thought you said that Miller just took pieces away at random. That wouldn't work.

I've read that that creationwiki article, but it has no references in it (obviously this is just plain human error, creating and maintaining a wiki is a lot of hard work and errors like that slip in). It is clear, though that you have only read this article and not the scientific paper that is used as evidence.

I've looked at the original paper and it actually says

Moreover, homologous flagellar proteins show phylogenetic clustering that suggests that the flagellar systems and Type III protein secretory systems diverged from each other following very early
duplication of a gene cluster sharing many (but not all) genes.


and

We suggest that the flagellar basal body was the evolutionary progenitor of the inner membrane components of the virulence-related TIIIPS system.


What is extremely apparent from reading the paper is that both the flagella and the TIIIPS are both features that evolved and examining the details carefully show that their development highlights the way all organisms can be traced back to a common ancestor using this technique.

The creationwiki page takes one small part of the discussion and ignores the rest of the paper, which speaks of the different phylogenetic trees that can be built using the evidence which creationwiki obviously supports.

#91 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 28 June 2010 - 04:26 PM

Good question, Jason!
.....
The creationwiki page takes one small part of the discussion and ignores the rest of the paper, which speaks of the different phylogenetic trees that can be built using the evidence which creationwiki obviously supports.

View Post

biological organisms are interdependant... Trees, yes sure (orchards)... not a single tree....

#92 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 28 June 2010 - 04:32 PM

Why do you keep thinking that IC is a model of evolution? It's a model for understanding creation.

View Post

Because it’s often applied to evolution as a way of illustrating evolution’s improbability. Creationists will make the argument that because a structure is irreducibly complex, the mutations required to form it would need to occur either simultaneously or in a specific, pre-determined sequence. This reasoning creates a false ultimatum, with two alternatives so unlikely they might as well be called impossible. It fails to account for the actual hypothesized mechanism of evolution, which in no way depends on parts showing up in the right place at the right time as if they’re aiming towards a final goal.

Evolutionists are the ones claiming that biological systems aren't designed, so it's their dilemma to figure out the pathway of assembly. By reverse engineering, we can already see that there isn't one.

View Post

I disagree. Most systems can be traced back to a less complex, yet still functional, version.

#93 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 29 June 2010 - 01:53 AM

biological organisms are interdependant... Trees, yes sure (orchards)... not a single tree....


You haven't looked at the actual paper. The trees are showing how the different phylogenies can be used to make tree's and then you can see that all the different tree's are all the same tree, in effect.

#94 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 June 2010 - 11:32 AM

I disagree. Most systems can be traced back to a less complex, yet still functional, version.


IC would agree as well, but removing the engine, transmission, and drivetrain from a chevy truck and turning it into a flatbed trailer tells us nothing about how a flatbed trailer could produce a chevy truck by successive, slight, modifications.

Comparing the TTSS to a bacterial flagellum is no different. Ken Miller didn't reduce it by the process in which it would have evolved, he found something much less complex to compare it to. (~70% less complex)



Enjoy.

#95 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 July 2010 - 07:13 AM

What do you want me to work out?  You keep shifting the goalposts.  Pick one and just one thing that you think is irreducibly complex.  This started with copulation, changed to mitosis, went through flagella and ATP synthesase. There are thousands of them, so if I show that one is not IC all you need to do is say, okay but what about this one.

Present one case in a manner which is scientifically acceptable to be dealt with, ie present the scientific basis for saying it is IC.  Before proceeing, present the method by which we may scientifically know whether it is ID or not ID.

In every case so far presented it has just been a case of "I don't believe it could have evolved"
This isn't a problem when the theory of evolution is examined fairly.

View Post

Technically meiosis is a part of copulation, since it produces the gametes involved in the act.

Okay, PhilC. Let's go back to meiosis. Maybe I missed your response to my challenge of the spindle apparatus and the kinetochores on the chromosomes. This is only an ioda of what is happening in cell division. Every other organelle is dividing at virtually the same time. We don't know what activates the simultaneous division. It is probably proteins but then what activates the proteins to activate?

At any rate, lets isolate the spindle apparatus and the kinetochores (little hooks) on the chromosomes.

Posted Image

Now we know that most likely the spindles chemically bind with the kinotochores. Whatever the chemical signatures on each respective "tentacle" can you imagine if one or a group of them weren't present?

Now think in reverse. Under evolution the chemical signatures line up one by one producing respective types of life. Although there is no proof of this transition, we will go on.

No evo believes in LaMarkian evolution, which says the spindle adapted itself and was inherited. We know that it happened in the genes --undirected by any goal--and then was fortunately selected for because it survived.

The Failure of Evolutionary Theory
But how can selection work if it is does not have it's parts in place FIRST? Selection needs both the apparatus and the kinetochores to be encoded BEFORE it can begin to work--but how then did they get in place--if there was no selection as we know it before the spindle apparatus? Because without it the cell can't divide.


In that, it is necessary for the tools of meiosis to be in place BEFORE any evolution can take place--because evolution needs populations and populations need meiosis--the system of meiosis is irreducibly complex. Namely because you need all parts assembled in order for it to work. Whether you have 2 chromosomes or 46.

Furthermore, because meiosis is a necessary mechanism for evolution, and it is impossible for life as we know it to multiply without it--evos are forced for invent theories like RNA world, precursor cells, and abiogenesis. All of which is never shown in the fossil record--but bacteria are.



This is the victory of creationism. It still uses the observations of selection and adaptability, but denies the foolishness of something creating itself, especially when it does not have the necessary tools. It is like saying my house was built with no hammers, saws, or carpenters.

Finally, it has nothing to do with what anyone believes. It is what makes sense that gives foundation for belief.

#96 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:20 AM

Present one case in a manner which is scientifically acceptable to be dealt with, ie present the scientific basis for saying it is IC.  Before proceeing, present the method by which we may scientifically know whether it is ID or not ID.


You haven't presented me with this yet. You have said that you can't believe it. You have not presented a testable ID position. How can we test to see if it Irreducibly Complex?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users