Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
“ID is on the same level as astrology - neither should be taught in Science class.”
Only in your world it is.
“And how does one teach SH?”
LOL. Darwin is a good start.....Go to any public school in America.....SH is rampant.
So E=mc^2 is a transformational process only? That makes sense, as does your argument; but it also appears correct to state that matter is “bounded” energy (rather than “frozen”). The electron cloud surrounding the atomic nucleus is not static but in motion, exerting a repulsive force against other electrons (the reason why things “feel” solid... we do not “touch” the object but rather the electrons in our finger interact with the electrons of the object, giving the sense of touching something solid... we do not atually “touch” the mass (protons and neutrons) of the atom, but rather we come against the electrons. Would you state this to be a correct interpretation?
“To write an equation “E=M” or “E=mc^2”, is not a statement of reality, not a proof, more of a tautology. What is the reality? — A neutron-rich nucleus shakes a bit (why then?), a neutron is emitted when the shaking is at some level (why?), the neutron is absorbed by a heavy nucleus rich in bosons and neutrons (why is it there, then?), that fatty shakes itself apart, and in that final event there is more energy and less mass.”
Although I am aware of these phenomina, the explanations are beyond my knowledge... Please elaborate.
Irreducible complexity as posed by the ID'ers is a false dilemma. The theory of evolutions not having answers to every question is not 'evidence' supporting the ID hypothesis. The ID hypothesis has to stand or fall on its own merits.
The next question is, does irreducible complexity, if true, falsify evolution? The answer is an unequivocal yes!
Lets take the question one step further, if it is true that there are irreducibly complex life forms, then the IR hypothesis has to answer the question, where did the complete fully functioning life forms come from and how? What is the evidence (not arguments) that support that hypothesis? Remember, lack of evidence is not evidence.
Does IR have any evidence supporting it? An example of a new life form spontaneously appearing would be nice : ) That is what the IR Hypothesis has to predict.
It is theorized that it is a process of random mutation. What at first blush appears random may not be. The design itself may be creating mutations in response to external stimulus or stress, looking for combinations that will cope better.
It's been submitted that it's not giving this theory a fair hearing to find a particular point that seems wrong or badly presented, and trying to tear down the whole thing based on that that one point.
As to the first -- sure your interpretation is reasonable. Me, I like to think that electrons are all about sex. The primal rib. The creator took raw light and gave us fermions, and from fermions, because they were point-alone -- bosons to marry and protect. That's real meta-physics.
[[I still don’t see anything there that says there can be no design that permits the organism to evolve. If it’s accepted that life can only arise by design, then once it’s there what it’s capable of becomes a question of design.]]
One word: Species specific parameters- this only allows a species to adapt just so far, or to be altered just so far, before it becomes a non viable system.
[[Arguing that evolution isn’t possible because the necessary metainfo isn’t there makes assumptions about what can or cannot be part of the original design.]]
Not really, we know htat parameters exist in all species, to suggest that at one time these parameters didn’t exist in billions of species, and then all of a sudden they were put in place is appealing to a case of appealing to faith despite hte evidences which strongly suggest otherwise.
Whiel it could be argued that God didn’t enact parameters at soem point, and just allowed species to Macroevolve beyond hteir own kinds, there simpyl is no evidence to support htis, and infact, the evidnece against it is so strong s to really make hte case scientifically unreasonable. I have naother long post started about metainfo, but it includes a silly analogy, but I think it illustrates how you can’t just expect any kind of foreign info to ‘invade’ a species or item, and expect that species or item to be able to utilize that info if hteir, or it’s, metainfo, isn’t equipped to allow such info in the first place- Again I feel pretty crappy today, and am not sure the silly analogy holds water, but I’ll read it over and see- if not too silly and irrelevent, I’ll post it- if I find it’s not that good, I won’t- We’ll see- hard to think today.
I’d say evolutionary theory would come closer to astrology than ID would. Astrology looks for connections and relationships that don’t exist and then proposes these influences are so subtle that cannot be detected.
Evolution connects animal skeletons, like the tarted up “Lucy”, which more closely resembles a chip of some kind, to humans in the hope that gap between them won’t be noticed.
I’d say evolutionary theory would come closer to astrology than ID would. Astrology looks for connections and relationships that don’t exist and then proposes these influences are so subtle that cannot be detected.
Evolution connects animal skeletons, like the tarted up “Lucy”, which more closely resembles a chip of some kind, to humans in the hope that gap between them won’t be noticed.
I’d say evolutionary theory would come closer to astrology than ID would. Astrology looks for connections and relationships that don’t exist and then proposes these influences are so subtle that cannot be detected.
Evolution connects animal skeletons, like the tarted up “Lucy”, which more closely resembles a chip of some kind, to humans in the hope that gap between them won’t be noticed.
[[So I will politely ask once again. What is your EVIDENCE! that supports ID?]]
and I will tell you politely, you CAN find Scientific ID sites online that have provided such evidence- As well- Behe’s examples of ID DO stand despite Miller’s deceitful mitpicking abotu hte reducible parts- the IC parts STILL remain IC- Behe refuted Miller’s claims after the trial- and you can find that online as well- There are a number of scientific ID sites- go yonder and explore.
[[So I will politely ask once again. What is your EVIDENCE! that supports ID?]]
What is the EVIDENCE that shows Macroevolution? IF you are demanding Evidence prove ID, then you are goign to have to provide evidence that PROVES Macroevolution, and if not able to produce it, then throw out macroevolution from school science classes becasue by your definition, you can’t allow unproven theories that don’t have direct evidence for the claims. However, having said that The EVIDENCE for iC are Exactly what Behe said htey were- It’s NOT an ‘argument’, it’s a FACT that if you remove the IC parts- the system can NOT survive- Behe refuted the arguments againt his claism of IC just fine- if you wish to beleive he didn’t- then fine- whatever, but the EVIDENCE, which IS falsifiable, stands on it;’s own merrits.
Behe provided the evidnece- handed it to Miller- Miller recoiled in fear, and immediately started attackign hte REDUCIBLE parts of the IC system and claimed that because certain REDUCIBLE parts are also a part of an IC system that hte IC within hte whole system must therefore not be IC- it was a rediculous argument- Behe said ‘test it out ofr yourself- He handed them the IC systems and said- prove they aren’t IC- Remove the IC omponents and let’s see what happens? They declined his offer because they KNOW the IC parts can not be Reduced, and hte system woudl fail.
Whiel science CAN laterally transfere genetic material between dissimilar kinds, this does NOT happen in nature, and certainly did not happen literally millions of times without leavign a shred of evidnece behind-
That's my point.
The problem with Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity is that the usual mode of evolution is change, not addition.
Knocking out genes does not model evolution in reverse.
I thought it might be the fission process, but was not sure if there was something more profound you were driving at. I will check the liquid drop process. Regarding particle physics (bosons, mesons, fermions, hardons (really?) quarks, et al: I made the attempt at understanding that “stuff” one time... and my brain crashed. I required three Martinis to reboot!
note to self: system is slow- hit the key onceee onceeee!
YHAOS- ignore Coyoteman- he has demonstrated he can’t rise above petty and false accusations and insults- even his reply to you shows he is disconnected fro m reality and the FACTS abotu those he ridicules- He has demonstrated consitently that he is not itnerested in discussing real science and is only interested in propogandizing with childish insults, claims and ireelevent assumptiosn to topics we discuss here- rsponding to him just brings on further ireelvent propoganda and irrelevent spam from him
At the Dover trial one of the ID big shots equated ID and astrology as both falling under his expanded definition of science.
And modern evolutionarily theory is supported by genetic/genome research.
[[The problem with Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity is that the usual mode of evolution is change, not addition.
Knocking out genes does not model evolution in reverse.]]
We;re not just talking genes, we’re also talking complete parts- but even if you change the IC parts, the IC can’t survive or function- even gradually changing- we still have hte problem of IC parts hanfging aroudn without other functions while everythign assembles i nthe right positions to self aseemble themselves- I’ve seen the arguments suggesting all these IC parts could have ‘had other funtions’ but ahve never seen any evidence nor nyone address all the IC parts- they just took one part from the motor and created a wild hypothesis that isn’t support4ed by hte evidnece.
However, IF all systems are IC, as hte paper suggests, then the examples given by Behe are still relevent, but not as important to the concept of IC as a whole, and I think this paper might just- just might, be quite important indeed in regards to overall IC. Will need to think about hte whole concept a bitm ore when I’m feelign better- that’s for sure
That does not surprise me, and I don't mean that sarcastically. I think the bottom line for me is that Williams asserts, but does not show, that since higher-level controls cannot be fully explained by the actions of the lower-level systems they control, there is no way they can naturally arise from those systems. (He also says that Polanyi made the same assertion, whereas the excerpts I posted show that Polanyi did no such thing.) To me, that's an unwarranted leap, and until he offers some support beyond analogies to nonliving machines, it's fatal to his argument.
That's three words, and another theory and set of assumptions which may or may not be true.
I think you'll find that we are talking about genes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.